Is The Genetic Code Proof Of Intelligent Design?

Hard to read those lyrics without hearing that voice, and the piano line.

 

Intelligent design questions in American colleges definitely provoke hostility, from both profs and students. And I am not sure why. I also believe it is lumped in with creationism, and approached by college profs with the same tactics. But as to why, I have been pondering. I think it has to do with the recognition of a higher intelligence than us existing in the universe, and perhaps that intelligence even interacting with us. What are the implications of us knowing this? Well, imo, they would be very similar to religion, which is pretty much a belief in a higher intelligence that is capable of guiding/teaching/saving/helping us. And that rubs academia the wrong way. So intelligent design is to be dismissed outright, and immediately.

 

think of it like this, a plague comes along and kills all humans that do not have a gene setup to fight it off... thus only those with the stronger immune system gene trait carry on... all the others died off

it's during these times of change that only the ones that can adapt survive or continue to reproduce to be more to the point

.

 

not sure I would want teachers teaching ancient alien theories to students though, sure at the very beginning they could touch on it, but other then that, there is nothing to tell as no one knows

evolution is happening and is provable, the question is, what started it all in motion, we don't know the answer to that

.

 

Exactly, what started it? We don't know yet. Therefore, intelligent design remains a possibility. Aliens remain a possibility. If they prove abiogenesis happened on Earth, these first 2 become more distant possibilities. Until then, I consider them possible, and don't appreciate outright dismissal.

 

Nonsense,

"Intelligent design" is rejected because it is entirely a dishonest effort by creationists to make an end run around the US Supreme Court.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

 

So my thoughts have been invaded and controlled by dishonest creationists doing something with the SCOTUS? Nah, I don't buy it. I have my questions for my own reasons. And my point is proven, I'm lumped in with some conflict going on between academia and religious folks.

 

It is one thing to keep an open mind. It is another to let your brains fall out on the floor. If Intelligent design or alien biology farmers are ever going to get in the classroom, they must get there the same way evolution did.

They must have evidence.

 

Pretty much, yes. The credulous are often unaware of their credulity. That's what makes them so easy to manipulate.

You don't have to buy it. The falling boulder will crush you regardless of whether you bleieve it or not.

If you jump into the middle of a conflict, there you are. No lumping necessary.

 

I know this. And I don't have any illusions of being one of those biologists to do it. But it would be nice if there were a few more seriously looking into the prospect. I'm tired of the only ones hypothesizing about intelligence of some sort "seeding" this planet are those on the Ancient Aliens show, who think aliens are responsible for every building or human concept we can think of. And it would be nice if one asked questions about it, that weren't ridiculed in colleges.

 

When one's positions are ridiculous, it is wise to anticipate ridicule.

Question: Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

 

You got me all wrong, I am not in the creationist camp, or the academia camp. From my observance of the conflict between these two, I see faults on both sides. One, genetic tweaking, I have made a thread on. I believe academia has been blinded in their fight with religion, and fail to see the dangers in this field. Same with abortion and social scientists. To me, academia seems to be intentionally ignoring serious negative consequences of widespread abortion, because they are blinded by some conflict with religion, that they feel a duty to resolve.

 

for all we know it could of been aliens stopping for a picnic and leaving the starting blocks for life behind... inadvertently or on purpose... maybe they go around doing this to spread life around the universe, maybe they are still doing it today

.

 

Having rather direct experience of both the creationists and what you weirdly choose to call "academia" I cannot credit this account with any semblance of actual reality.

 

You speak as one who has not attended any university, at all, and has no idea what goes on there.

 

It doesn't matter to me, I learned the theory of evolution to an extent I would say exceeds 90% of the pop. I know this because I try to talk about it, and most can't. But I don't know everything about it. But I'm starting to have a very good idea of what is going on there, thanks.

 

So now we are pretending there isn't some conflict going on between the world of the US colleges, which I call academia, and religion? I've been there, and the profs just aren't subtle enough to convince me there is no agenda. Sorry, they failed in that area.

 

I have yet to see academia "Fight" against religion...unless we consider pointing out scientific inaccuracy a fight. While many religious folks feel this is an attack on faith, it is actually simply science doing what it was intended to do.

Some may not like the results and cry foul as a result, but it does not change the reality.

 

I see your point, and I can't really explain it right now. Science classes remain neutral most of the time, until anything is mentioned about religion (even if it is mentioned in casual small talk that is overheard, or if it is overheard being ridiculed by students), and then I can clearly see from their responses to these situations that most are not neutral. Spend a couple years at a moderately prestigious liberal university and one cannot help but come away with the idea that religion is not a good thing in general. And I strongly disagree with their conclusions.

 

While it may very well be that individual in a science class scoff at someone who leans religious in opposition to that being taught...this is also not an attack. If someone brings raw fish to a class on cooking cheesecake...they might expect a bit of ridicule as well.

 

There are, in my experience, two postures academia takes with respect to religion. First, with respect to those religions whose mythology is assumed to be natural history, academics and especially science cannot be respectful. Those myths are NOT natural history, and cannot be treated that way with any respect for reality.

Second is the inherent non-theism of science. It's not that science opposes religion, it's that religious ideas, approaches, and methods simply don't relate; they are not part of the academic and especially scientific enterprise.

But I have seen that some religious believers, unwilling or unable to recognize the non-historicity of their myths, feel that academia and science are actively hostile. This is a "if you're not with me you're against me" approach. A discipline in which religion plays no role at all, is going to seem hostile to someone whose religion pervades every thought and view.

 

I was referring to this..

and similar quotes elsewhere.

Whether you are reasonably familiar with ToE, I cant say. Knowing more than 90% of the citizenry would be close to damning with faint praise.

 

Nothing resembling what you have been describing here, no. There is on occasion an asymmetrical effort by sectarian apologists to disrupt actual science classes with diversions into material that is irrelevant to the course at hand, or to try and insert their own religious and philosophical dogmas into classes that deal with neither religion nor philosophy. Professors have the responsibility to cut off the disruption and return the class effort to the material at hand. If feelings are hurt in the process, that is entirely on the student trying to hijack the resources of the professor and the valuable time of the other students in the class.

Of course they have an agenda. It is to 1) teach the best science possible in 2) the time allotted by the curriculum while not 3) wasting the money and time of the students who paid good money to be taught science. Subtlety would be rather out of place.