Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Geoff]

...intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

That's just Russell's teapot and invisible pink unicorns; you can do better than that...

Don't put money on it.

Good advice: seems like I was wrong.

[Seth]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

That's not saying much, though. Evolution is interfered with by an intelligent entity every day. Man is an intelligent entity and we have effected the evolution of everything on the planet, just about, for the last 10,000+ years.

Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is simply that it is not logical or rational to presume or insist that intelligent design of organisms, or indeed the genesis of life on this planet, is not possible or not factual.

Nobody really presumes that.

Actually, the evidence I've viewed indicates that the vast majority of Atheists I've encountered in these sorts of fora presume precisely that.

What people are talking about when they talk about "ID" is not whether it's possible that life on this planet was seeded by some extraterrestrial life.

Indeed. But just because they are guilty of fuzzy thinking doesn't mean I'm obliged to excuse them.

I recall a blurb from Dawkins wherein he mentions this possibility. That's not what "ID" is.

Isn't it? As I've said, Atheists commonly conflate the term "Intelligent Design" with a specific set of arguments made by creationists in an attempt to justify injecting creationism into the public schools. The Kitzmiller v. Dover version of "ID" is just one particularly inept and deliberately mendacious iteration of the general concept of "intelligent design" (non-capitalized) that has been co-opted by both creationists and atheists as a battle cry for both sides.

Thus, any invocation of the word combination "intelligent design," regardless of the actual context or scientific validity behind the utterance, is first knee-jerk conflated with the Dover crew and then excoriated and rejected out of hand, without any serious consideration whatsoever, merely because it might suggest something other than purely "naturalistic" processes in the evolution of life on this planet or the creation of our universe. As we can see from this discussion, and others here, it doesn't matter how sound the reasoning and logical inference I make are regarding the potential for intelligent design of organisms on this planet, the whole idea is simply rejected with all the reason and thought of a Muslim extremist rejecting anything that deviates from his Imam's version of the Qu'ran. It's positively medieval how mindlessly Atheists reject even the hint of a suggestion that superior intelligence might have been involved our universe.

Reason would dictate that the scientific response to my assertion of the possibility of intelligent design or manipulation of genes in our deep past be "Interesting hypothesis, and certainly possible, but we have, as yet, no confirmatory evidence of such intelligent involvement, although such evidence may turn up eventually, and we probably ought to keep a weather eye out for such evidence, just in case, so we won't miss it if it does show up."

Why, I ponder, is this sort of rational, reasonable, scientific attitude almost never heard among the Atheist "intelligentsia" on these fora?

What bothers me about people like Dawkins is that they try to use what we know of the processes of evolution like a blunt instrument against the notion that aspects of this universe, or of life on earth or elsewhere could be the product, to some degree or other, of intelligent design.

Your wording is what confuses this issue. Dawkins doesn't do that. He doesn't say that it "couldn't" be. He puts himself at 6 on the scale of 7 in terms of atheism, leaving just a bit of room for "could be."

Which means that he's actually just equivocating.

Nobody, including Dawkins, thinks it's impossible for people to design life forms, or for terraforming of a planet to be possible. That would be "intelligent design" of a different sort, however, than that which "ID" is talking about.

See, you're doing it again. "ID" is not just one thing, or one specific train of thought, and it's narrow-minded to be non-specific about rejecting "intelligent design" by thoughtlessly conflating it with the Dover School Board version of "ID."

For example, there is nothing unscientific about suggesting that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. It's a valid scientific hypothesis that has not been conclusively disproven through experimentation. There are, as has been shown here, competing theories about how the flagellum might have evolved, but like any scientific dispute, each side now has opportunity to support their theory with research and evidence. The key point being that the proposition of irreducible complexity is NOT inherently a theistic concept. It may have at it's core the assertion that the bacterial flagellum, being irreducibly complex, cannot have occurred without intelligent intervention or design, but neither is THAT assertion inherently theistic, as I have pointed out.

The fact is that the argument that intelligent design could be responsible for any number of things, from the constants of physics to the design of the bacterial flagellum is an entirely scientific argument.

The problem the Dover School Board had was that it came to the table with dirty hands. In the Kitzmiller case, it was demonstrated by the evidence that the Dover School Board deliberately MISUSED the scientific argument over intelligent design in a deliberate attempt to inject creationism into the public schools. The judge was fully justified in ruling that the Dover Board's actions were unconstitutional because the evidence showed that they had actually conspired to inject creationism by using ID as a scientific smoke screen.

Where the judge went badly wrong, and where he exceed his legitimate judicial authority, was in rendering legal judgment on a question of science, and ruling the scientific debate about intelligent design to be in and of itself inherently theistic and therefore unlawful to teach in public schools. This was judicial error in two ways: First, judges are generally advised not to go beyond what is necessary to make a finding in a particular case, in order to prevent judicial activism and reversible error. In the Kitzmiller case, all the judge had to do was examine the statements of the Dover defendants, which showed their explicit intent to misuse a scientific dispute as a vehicle for injecting creationism into the schools. He should have ruled on that point alone in favor of the plaintiffs.

His other error was in characterizing what is in fact a valid scientific debate, however much you or I might agree or disagree with the strength of the "irreducible complexity" argument, as inherently a religious or theistic idea that is therefore proscribed from the public schools.

Clearly, absent the "dirty hand" of the Dover Board, one can only view the hypothesis of "irreducible complexity" as a valid scientific hypothesis, however strong or weak it may be. Therefore, since it's a valid scientific dispute, it should not be per se unlawful to "teach the controversy" insofar as irreducible complexity is concerned, and insofar as the equally valid scientific notion that intelligence may have been involved in either the creation of the universe or in the progress of evolution on this planet are concerned.

Whether either of the two scientific hypotheses are sufficiently strong as to justify teaching them to school children is a matter for the school board to decide, since there is no legal metric for what constitutues "acceptable" science in school curricula, there is only a general consensus among educators as to what is appropriate, based on the grade level of the student.

Therefore, while it may be inappropriate (though not unlawful) to teach about the theory of irreducible complexity, and it's companion arguments in favor of naturalistic evolution to third graders, it may be perfectly appropriate for high-schoolers. That's a decision for the school board to make, I think.

Dawkins in particular engages in this sort of unreason and mindless hatred of religion because of, evidently, some personal trauma inflicted on him in school. He has developed a pathological hatred of religion, which is his right, of course, but he allows that hatred and bias to manifest itself in unreason and illogic and a likewise pathological insistence that intelligent design simply cannot be the explanation for anything. He says as much in "The God Delusion," when he dismisses the idea of an extraterrestrial intelligence with hand-waving denial because he "prefers" not to think of himself as the pawn of some other intelligence. That's bad science no matter how you cut it.

It's also not what he says in the God Delusion.

Actually, I believe it is.

I look at religion like an onion; layers of myth and dogma built around what may be a core scientific truth.

That's bad science no matter how you cut it.

Actually, that's largely philosophy, and there's nothing "bad" about examining myth for its connection to reality and science.

Your statement is meaningless anyway. You look at "religion" that way? What? Any religion? Or a specific assertion? What's the core of "scientific truth?" What principle? You look at Buddhism that way? It's layers of myth over a core of scientific truth?

Could be.

And, what's the point of that? Truth is truth, and not truth is not.

Ah, but the trick is discovering what is truth and what is not.

Nobody says that everything religion says isn't true. Religions have a lot of principles that are true - like - maybe there really was a Solomon's Temple or an Ark of the Covenant of some form in real life. Even if there is, so what? It's still not science and says nothing about whether there exists a god or "Designer." It's just a fact that happens to be true.

The science comes in examining the myths to discover what hidden scientific truths may be found therein.

Science is not the same as truth. Science is a process - a method. Some things science discovers aren't true, but they're still science. And, just because something is true doesn't make it science.

True. So what? Other things are true, and remain science even when they are wrongfully conflated with myth.

I choose to remain open-minded about what the nature of the universe might actually be, rather than what science currently perceives it to be based on our extremely limited intellects and abilities. And so I use logical inferences based on what science we have to speculate about the possibility that an intelligent designer is somehow involved in the course of evolution on Earth. Does this mean that I have any solid evidence of such intelligence? No, of course not. But reason and logic still demand acknowledgment of the facts, which include the fact that in the deep past, it is certainly a possibility, no matter how remote one might think it is, that an intelligence meddled with evolution on one or more occasions.

And, to that extent, nobody would argue with you.

Strange you should make this assertion, because I've been doing so for quite some time, and it seems there is no dearth of people willing to argue with me about it.

But, it's likewise certainly a possibility, no matter how remote one might think it is, that we poofed into existence a second ago, built in with memories as if we lived our whole lives, even though we haven't. So what? Do you think you're saying something profound?

I'm merely highlighting the irrationality of most of the Atheists I've ever become acquainted with, in hopes that perhaps they, or others, will recognize the irrationality involved and will resolve to eschew it in the future.

Do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know that?

I think Richard Dawkins is a competent biologist and a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-religious bigot whose antipathy towards religion poisons much of what should be an outstanding reputation in science.

It's one thing to acknowledge some remote possibility and the inability to disprove certain assertions. It's quite another to call them science or take them seriously. When there is reason to subscribe to the idea, then it'll be worth subscribing to.

But even Dawkins acknowledges outright that the question of whether God exists is absolutely a scientific question, and he's right. Why is something unscientific merely because it's highly improbable or not subject to falsification at the moment?

Eventually, when our knowledge of the universe(s) is complete and perfected, we will know for certain whether this occurred or not. Until then, it's simply an unanswered, and presently unanswered, question. But it's neither theistic nor unscientific to pose such question.

We will never no for sure that we didn't just blip into existence a second ago. Our knowledge will never be perfect.

How do you know?

That doesn't mean we are compelled to "acknowledge" everything we can't disprove.

Why doesn't it? Isn't the first step of scientific inquiry an acknowledgment of a hypothesis about the nature of the universe? If one refuses to acknowledge that extraterrestrial may exist and may have been involved in evolution on this planet, then one will never bother to look for or accept evidence which points in that direction, should such evidence appear.

Yes, judgment is reserved. But, I can't disprove that someone didn't just get spoken to by Zenac of the 11th dimension through an undetectable communication portal. Why would I "acknowledge" it, though?

What chain of logical inferences lead you to the belief that Zenac exists in the 11th dimension?

It's just that the specific iterations of ID that have been used as a stalking horse for injecting creationism into the schools are legally improper. The term "Intelligent Design" has, unfortunately, been co-oped by creationists and misused to the extent that the term is universally, but entirely improperly, conflated with creationism, which makes it useless as a term of art in discussions of the concept of intelligent design.

That's why I coined the phrase "the origin of life on Earth" or OLE as a new term to identify a formulation of "intelligent design" that does not contain or describe a creationist perspective, but rather relies on science, reason and logic in saying that intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

All correct. There's no evidence of alien interference or meddling with life on Earth, but it certainly can't be ruled out. Lots of things can't be ruled out. Saying something can't be ruled out, however, is rather pointless.

Well, I don't think it's pointless, and neither does the SETI project, among others.

SETI is different, though. They are working concretely, testing their hypothesis. We have planets here in this solar system. Part of the Search for Extraterrestrial life is going on by sending out craft to visit other worlds and see what's their. Similarly, one way we might test for alien life is to see if anyone is communicating out there. So, put up a receiver and see if anyone is talking. So far, nobody is.

That's not the same thing as gods and demons or some amorphous "maybe great intelligence designed the universe" hypothesis.

I find it interesting that you seem to be unaware of the logical thought processes that preceded the creation of the SETI project, which involved speculation about the possible existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. All I'm doing is making exactly the same core argument that the SETI project does, in a slightly different context. I do not merely hypothesize that an extraterrestrial intelligence exists, I hypothesize that such an intelligence could have intentionally manipulated DNA in the deep past here on earth.

If the core hypothesis of SETI is scientific, then please explain to me why the ancillary hypothesis I state that involves active participation by such an intelligence in earth's genetic history is not likewise scientific? Just because I do not have a method for testing it at the moment does not make it inherently unscientific, now does it?

That we are not aware of genetic meddling in the deep past ought not blinder science to the possibility, or prevent it from considering that as a possible cause when examining phenomena.

Nobody dismisses that possibility.

Funny, it seems to me that nearly everyone I've ever encountered at Ratskep and RDF dismisses it most vociferously and at length, and so do some people here.

It may be rejected as a cause for good and sufficient reason, but it should always be kept in mind, because if the notion of intelligent design is simply flatly rejected out of hand, then any evidence of intelligent design maybe overlooked or discarded improperly due to bias and antipathy on the part of science. And that would be a great tragedy if such evidence actually does exist, now wouldn't it?

Evidence of extraterrestrial interference, meddling or seeding of life on earth is not "evidence of intelligent design." At least not the intelligent design guys like Behe and those other numbskulls at the Discovery Institute are talking about.

See, there you go again, conflating the general proposition of intelligent design with a specific iteration that uses the same terminology in a lame attempt to evade the consequences of your intransigence and unreason. We may agree that the Discovery Institute is fatally tainted by creationism, but that in no way impeaches the scientific status of the broader issue of intelligent design, or OLE, as I put it.

[Seth]

You are, he did. I don't have my copy handy, but if I can find it I'll track down the reference.

I have a copy in my hand here. Nothing in the index on UFOs, extra-terrestrials or aliens.

To the best of my recollection, the statement was towards the beginning of the book. I noted it, and indeed I made many marginal notations in the book, which happens to be packed away in a stack of about 25 boxes of books I haven't been able to unpack since I moved. I have to have bookshelves built before I do so. But I'll try to find it and find the passage I'm referring to. I doubt it would be in the index.

And therein lies his error. He engages the Atheist's Fallacy to determine that God is a "supernatural" force, and then rejects the notion of intelligent design because God is alleged to be a supernatural force, when in fact, that which we might rationally refer to as "God" might be an entirely natural, and even evolved intelligence of a much higher order and capability than we can explain or understand right now.

Well if that is the case it's not a fallacy to dismiss a supernatural entity, is it?

First you have to carefully define "supernatural," then you have to show that "supernatural" means "imaginary and nonexistent" rather than merely "not yet detected, quantified and explained by science at this time," and then you have to show that the entity falls into that category.

Yes it could be that our universe is a computer programme created by beings of an intellect way beyond us, it could be anything.

Indeed. Therefore it is not rational to conclude that such an eventuality is "supernatural" and therefore impossible.

The best argument that atheists are able to present, ever, in "refutation" of my proposition is some form of, "well, there's no evidence of intelligent design, so I don't have to bother thinking about it," followed by either abandonment of the discussion (as seen here) or a resort to ad hominem in place of reason and debate.

Well there is no evidence for intelligent design.

That, my friend, is where you are absolutely, categorically wrong. Monsanto BT corn and Roundup-Ready sugar beets are but one example of proof absolute of intelligent design of organisms.

Nor have the proponents even bothered to form a theory we can examine.

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

Their whole buzz seems to be trying to discredit evolution rather than do any research themselves and come up with falsifiable and empirical tests which can be studied.

Yes, that is the case for some who are misusing science as a vehicle to inject creationism in the public schools, but that doesn't mean that the theory of intelligent design is unscientific, merely that SOME PEOPLE are choosing to misuse science for political and religious ends.

Until they do it's not likely to gain any credibility in science. That's the whole point. This is not being close minded. There is simply nothing to go on. I'm sure if someone does come up with something scientists will be all over that shit like flies.

Actually, it is being closed minded in many cases, particularly where legitimate scientists are attempting to investigate "intelligent design" but are being harassed and having their careers destroyed for having the gall to even think of doing so. Mainstream science, it seems, cannot tolerate anything that might even conceivably lend credence to the notion that intelligent design might have occurred. This intolerance manifests itself in zealotry and persecution every bit as reprehensible as the persecutions of non-believers by the religious these days.

Just try submitting a grant proposal to investigate intelligent design and see what it does to your scientific career for proof.

[Seth]

Evolution, as a force, is not negated or diminished or made "not"-evolution just because humans meddle with DNA.
Whatever manipulation we do will either have beneficial or neutral consequences, given conditions, and the affected organisms will have a good run before going extinct. Or it will have detrimental consequences and the organisms will never get a chance.

Evolution is greater than humans and humans are not necessary nor are our manipulations greater or fitter than anything evolution can produce. Human manipulation of DNA is as much a "tool" of evolution as oxygen, water, sunlight, and sex.

True, but not particularly relevant. I do not challenge the theory of evolution except insofar as it suggests, or occasionally insists, that it is THE, and THE ONLY process by which organisms change or come into being.

[Seth]

As with all questions; make decisions based on evidence and facts.
Speculation is an exercise, not a finished product.

There is no evidence of any creative entity or deity. There is no reason to assume that even if there is a creative--or initiating--entity that it would be a type of god.

Well, I'd dispute that. There is evidence of a creative intelligence called "human beings." We have limited creative powers, at the moment limited to creating minor evolutionary changes in organisms. But our limitations do not imply that such limitations must be imposed on all intelligences.

As for "deity," that's a rather broad term, and has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion and sociology. It's not proper to conflate "creator" or "creative entity" with "deity," since nothing requires that a creative entity be a deity.

[Geoff]

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

That's not a theory, in fact it barely even qualifies as a hypothesis.

[Animavore]

To the best of my recollection, the statement was towards the beginning of the book. I noted it, and indeed I made many marginal notations in the book, which happens to be packed away in a stack of about 25 boxes of books I haven't been able to unpack since I moved. I have to have bookshelves built before I do so. But I'll try to find it and find the passage I'm referring to. I doubt it would be in the index.

I don't see why it wouldn't be indexed but if you can find it please do.

First you have to carefully define "supernatural," then you have to show that "supernatural" means "imaginary and nonexistent" rather than merely "not yet detected, quantified and explained by science at this time," and then you have to show that the entity falls into that category.

The dictionary already defines "supernatural"...

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

That which is "not yet detected, quantified and explained by science at this time," is exactly that, "not yet detected, quantified and explained by science at this time."

That, my friend, is where you are absolutely, categorically wrong. Monsanto BT corn and Roundup-Ready sugar beets are but one example of proof absolute of intelligent design of organisms.

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

That's not a theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. A theory should be able to explain the facts, make predictions and be falsifiable. What facts does your so-called theory explain? What predictions can we make? How is it falsifiable? What am I looking for? How can I examine it?
And I don't think I've to remind you where burden of proof lies anyway.

Actually, it is being closed minded in many cases, particularly where legitimate scientists are attempting to investigate "intelligent design" but are being harassed and having their careers destroyed for having the gall to even think of doing so. Mainstream science, it seems, cannot tolerate anything that might even conceivably lend credence to the notion that intelligent design might have occurred. This intolerance manifests itself in zealotry and persecution every bit as reprehensible as the persecutions of non-believers by the religious these days.

Just try submitting a grant proposal to investigate intelligent design and see what it does to your scientific career for proof.

Conspiracy theory nonsense. When scientists come up with a theory for some sort of intelligent design that can be examined then others might look into it. Saying that intelligent design is a possibility is no good. You need to bring something to the table. You would have to present your proposal for a grant, outline your plans and even if you couldn't get one off a science academy you could certainly get one off the Discovery Institute who would be only to happy to fund you (even if your idea of 'intelligent design' is different to theirs). Yet curiously this is not happening.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

Why would that be needed. Your reference to human interference is moot because we weren't around to do that until recently. You need to provide the intelligence, and explain why it was needed. Than explain why it would bother.

[Seth]

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

That's not a theory, in fact it barely even qualifies as a hypothesis.

WhatEVER....

[Seth]

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

That's not a theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. A theory should be able to explain the facts...
What facts does your so-called theory explain?

Intelligence exists, this is an observable fact.

make predictions ...What predictions can we make?

Intelligence will be found to exist where organic data processing and memory structures substantially similar to the human brain are found.

Intelligence will be found to exist wherever data processing capacity, data, and memory storage exists in sufficient quantity, complexity and configuration.

and be falsifiable. How is it falsifiable?

Examine all other places in the universe(s) and fail to find intelligence.

What am I looking for?

Evidence of intelligence and/or intelligent manipulation of nature. Example: BT corn

How can I examine it?

Not my problem, that's for the science wonks to figure out.

And I don't think I've to remind you where burden of proof lies anyway.

Evasion.

Actually, it is being closed minded in many cases, particularly where legitimate scientists are attempting to investigate "intelligent design" but are being harassed and having their careers destroyed for having the gall to even think of doing so. Mainstream science, it seems, cannot tolerate anything that might even conceivably lend credence to the notion that intelligent design might have occurred. This intolerance manifests itself in zealotry and persecution every bit as reprehensible as the persecutions of non-believers by the religious these days.

Just try submitting a grant proposal to investigate intelligent design and see what it does to your scientific career for proof.

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

Tell that to David Coppedge

When scientists come up with a theory for some sort of intelligent design that can be examined then others might look into it. Saying that intelligent design is a possibility is no good. You need to bring something to the table. You would have to present your proposal for a grant, outline your plans and even if you couldn't get one off a science academy you could certainly get one off the Discovery Institute who would be only to happy to fund you (even if your idea of 'intelligent design' is different to theirs). Yet curiously this is not happening.

That's not the point. The question is whether the proposition that organisms on this planet could have been intelligently designed is a "scientific" proposition or a "nonscientific" theistic proposition.

I'm not claiming that it's possible to determine at this point whether or not intelligence manipulated DNA in the deep past, I'm simply saying that the issue is NOT inherently theistic or religious in nature, and that it IS a scientific proposition based on current knowledge about the ability of humans to manipulate DNA today, and a rational, logical inference that, because it has been demonstrated to be possible today, it is just as possible in the past, provided that intelligence at least as advanced as our own existed sometime in the 14 billion years preceding our era.

Because this is an entirely scientific proposition, not a religious one, nothing in the laws of the United States should preclude any public school teacher or school board from pointing out to students that natural evolution may not be the only explanation for the existence of life on earth or it's forms today. Whether it is wise for schools to do so is a matter for the school board, not the courts.

I am quite deliberately disconnecting theistic beliefs and dogma from the core question, which is a perfectly rational scientific one, to make a point about the blinders that science, and the courts, wear when it comes to the proposition.

[Seth]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

Why would that be needed. Your reference to human interference is moot because we weren't around to do that until recently. You need to provide the intelligence, and explain why it was needed. Than explain why it would bother.

No, I don't.

[Azathoth]

You didn't answer me Seth. How about our modern nutters like Von Danniken and the Scientologists? Should we be looking at them seriously too or do you have to be an iron age crackpot to benefit from your tolerism?

What do you mean by "looking at them seriously?"

That's extremely evasive Seth. Do you think they warrant serious consideration as viable alternatives to accepted scientific wisdom?

[Gallstones]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

Why would that be needed. Your reference to human interference is moot because we weren't around to do that until recently. You need to provide the intelligence, and explain why it was needed. Than explain why it would bother.

No, I don't.

You don't have to, but can you?

[Tero]

God was lonely, so had to create some critters that would respect and love him. Or at least fear him.

[Seth]

You didn't answer me Seth. How about our modern nutters like Von Danniken and the Scientologists? Should we be looking at them seriously too or do you have to be an iron age crackpot to benefit from your tolerism?

What do you mean by "looking at them seriously?"

That's extremely evasive Seth. Do you think they warrant serious consideration as viable alternatives to accepted scientific wisdom?

Probably not. Then again I don't know enough about either to render a judgment. I'm satisfied to let them play in their sandbox however it pleases them to do so.