Possible destruction of ID

It's Raining Red Aliens...

THIS article from CNN (originally from popular science) may show us concrete evidence to disprove intelligent design.

It talks about red structures that could possibly be cells. They are organic, they multiply, yet they have no DNA.

It is theorized that they might be life from space.

If this is true, that we have discovered microbes that live in space that do not follow the traditional pattern of life on our beautiful planet (aka Earth), do we not disprove intelligent design?

Also, a bit of conspiracy. This potentially Earth-changing story was hidden in the Science and space section, instead of placed on the front page. When it was placed on the CNN website, the front page story was about Anna Nicole Smith being pregnant. Conspiracy? You decide.

Oh yeah, I read an article about them in a magazine, either Discover or Scientific American.

But if these things are extraterrestrial than its probably the most important discovery since sliced bread

The red rains of india are certainly intersting. However, if they are life without dna, then that doesn't show that life isn't irreducibly complex. Infact, most arguements for ID seem to be based upon actual protein structure, rather than DNA structure (like the bacterial flagellum).

Okay I don't really see how this disproves ID. Intelligent design merely states that there is a God that created the universe, not how God did it.
If this tries to disproves ID it just begs the question how did the red cells come into existence? Did they spontaneously come out of nowhere? How did the universe come into existence? How did the big bang start? These are the questions that ID try to answer.

Still to early imo to say what these things are, and more importantly, where they come from. We have an enormous, complicated and extremely active biosphere... any number of organisms can be 'swept up and rained down.' Further, imo, I don't see panspermia as a stumbling block for ID.... can't see this settling any of the arguments (eg IC, front loading etc.) I do see where your going (assuming your seeing this as a sort of 'missing link' between chemistry and biology) but I would't jump the gun yet.


FWIW I liked your first title better.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Intelligent design merely states that there is a God

No. ID says that we can, scientifically, detect design in nature... at least that's the attempt. Interpretations of philosphical and metaphysical implications will, and do, vary. I like to say it shows that we're not here by accident. Technically you could plug in some uber-advanced alien civilization and not change anything about the design inference. The 'alien designer theory' isn't testable or falsifiable either BTW. Unless we get some better scopes and find: "inspected by #47" or better: "made in Serpo" written on the bottom of the flagellum. 'Cause everybody knows Serpians make the best ones.

Creating life from the 'ground up' isn't outside the realm of possibility and some scientists (see: Guth) theorize we could even create an entire universe, define the paramaters etc, etc. So the designer could be 'normal' if you will. There's just no way to determine that... hence nobody claims to be able to identify the designer. Which bugs the critics to no end.

While the whole 'God did it' thing annoys me, at the end of the day, it is my belief and I don't care to argue against it (ie, pro alien.) Technically though, that extrapolation is un-warranted/neccessary and changes ID from science to philosophy aka psuedoscience. Some say the 'science part' of ID isn't really science either but I digress.

But... imo, that's the fear to be sure. If ID is shown valid (many-many moons from now, if ever) every creationist from here to Timbuktu will be saying I told ya so... or something to that effect. Might all just be philosophy at the end of the day (which means "they" couldn't ever "disprove" it)... sometimes I just don't know. Sorta like using science to determine good and bad (ie, design and chance), which science doesn't do (well.)

Still pretty cool find though They said that they think it's replicating based on the 'buds' viewed under a micrograph... if it's replicating without DNA that's BIG news I would think. Regardless, if it did come from space... that's big, BIG news too. Guess will know more when the next series of tests are published.

Rren,
you are right, I apologize for my erroneous statement. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Okay I don't really see how this disproves ID. Intelligent design merely states that there is a God that created the universe, not how God did it.
If this tries to disproves ID it just begs the question how did the red cells come into existence? Did they spontaneously come out of nowhere? How did the universe come into existence? How did the big bang start? These are the questions that ID try to answer.

the point is that they don't fit the mold that we are used to, and could be a microscopic missing link. their lack of dna might make them incredibly primitive creatures.

rren, i don't quite understand how a designer doesn't explicitly imply an omnipotent, timeless, divine being.

there has to be, or else it makes no sense.

design implies designer, designer implies something that could create life...

either i'm being really slow, or it's a bs arguement to say it doesn't imply a god of some sort.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
rren, i don't quite understand how a designer doesn't explicitly imply an omnipotent, timeless, divine being.

there has to be, or else it makes no sense.

design implies designer, designer implies something that could create life...

Say we figure out how to do it. "We" of course meaning actual scientists. Would we, who've created life, and perhaps 'seeded' it elsehwere, be omnipotent, timeless, or divine beings?

either i'm being really slow, or it's a bs arguement to say it doesn't imply a god of some sort.

Well I do have lots of BS arguments so you may be correct. My point is, obtuse as it may be, you just can't say scientifically (ie, using the scientific method) who designed the design just that it was designed (you just get dizzy?) The argument is then philosophy or theology... till we meet some aliens who 'fess up, or we find that "made in Serpo" stamp I spoke of earlier. I'm not saying it's [designer=God] not a logical conclusion, heck I agree, it's just not scientific. Something doesn't have to be scientific to be true, science has limits the Truth does not. See philosophy again. That dreaded line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

PS... there's a thread on this is the sci-tech forum that you might like (some links to older studies of the 'red rain')

Regards

IDers can dream on

rren, thank you for being very logical and somewhat self-depricating

i'm just saying about this article, if there is alien life, and that alien life is completely different from the "patterns" that ID proponents talk about, or is a primitive stepping stone from proteins to life.

I agree, its still to early to say exactly what these thing's are.

As for the ID arguments, ID doesn't explain anything really. As Rren mentioned, the 'designer' could be normal, like us humans. This statement is completly unprovable, but does give a possible scenario for our universe. Doesn't explain how life came to be and raises the question of how did life start for our potential designer. Did our potential designer arise through natural processes as per evidence suggest within our own universe for life on earth? Or did our potential designer also require a designer ad infinitum? Of course, these questions get ignored because the IDer's aren't able to answer them, know it's the downfall of their "logic", and are just plain ignorant.

It's pretty much just stupid logic. Heck, can't even call it logic, it's just plainly ignorant. Born of religous mindsets. Nearly ALL IDer's I've seen claim the IDer is their GOD. Their lovable special little diety written about in their beloved bedtime story. The only reason I can see so far for IDers to 'claim to not identify the designer', is to get it pushed into schools as 'science'. While I agree that current theories SHOULD be challenged to pave the way for the most probable or even better, the exact scenario for such thing's as evolution and big bang. I disagree that this should be done by throwing in that some unseen higher power whom is unprovable from the get go, is the way to do it.

I do acknowledge that a small fraction believe that the designer is possibly 'alien'. Score one for Icke. The chances for such a scenario as this are IMHO, null. Just as the chances for some super powerfull father like diety. The economics and energy requirements behind such an 'experiment' are, again imo, alot. I don't know much about this idea of us being able to create our own universe, nor how feasable such a thing is. Especially when we're having trouble doing something even simpler, such as creating a sustained fusion reaction. Or providing shelter, food, and energy for every human on this planet. As a species, any intelligent species, I would hope these thing's would be first and foremost before experimenting with creating universes.

Whatever the cause, just remember, it was MY special all powerfull unseen father like deity/alien and NOT YOURS!

Prove it wasn't suckers!