Dawkins defends comments about "Alien Designers".


It seems Dick can attempt to explain anything as long as it doesn't include the words "God" or "gods"
Maybe it's just a hang up on terms and time frames.

Thoughts?

After a second read I noticed thes two scentences. I think I know what he's getting at but it's weird to see them so close and in the context they're being used.

Dawkins does not defend alien designers. He merely states that Panspermia cannot be an answer as that lifeform would have had to evolve as well.

So? He's making perfect sense here.

Edit: I went to look for the source of this and found something completely different:
http://io9.com/375766/richard-dawkin...deo?mail2=true

Edit2: I guess it's actually relevent, since it explains why people are talking about this now. It came out of an interview with Ben Stein, pertaining to his new movie about ID.

It's a direct copy/ paste. What's different?

Edit: Ah,, Ok. I get it.

Anyway, if you've read my posts in the past, you know that Im very interested but have not concluded that either side (Darwinians or Creationists) is 100% correct.
I just think it's funny that he would even entertain the idea of aliens for a second when he's bent on destroying the "flying spaghetti monsters" that we already have. Weird.

The context. Why act surprised that scientists entertain all sorts of absurd notions? That is how we arrive at the truth.

Ah, "the truth", again. I'm so sick of everyone and their self serving truths. Why is it so hard to admit that we don't know? I've never claimed to know "the truth". I guess I'm a real scientist, eh?

Because we do know, we know quite a bit.

Hmm is this the future? Or do I mean the past?

I could ask questions all day that you and I can't answer. Should that imply that I have no place in science? Or am I ahead ,somehow, by admitting a few things are left to be dicovered?

I got chills from reading that first POST.

He's probably referring to the fact that amino acid chirality as seen in the Murchison and Murray meteorites has itself evolved. There is no scientific reason why there should be a greater proportion of L-amino acids in these meteorites.

Science works by questioning everything. Even Dawkins would enjoy considering any evidence for a God. It's a misunderstanding to say that biologists are ideologically attached to any particular explanation. It's just that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and nothing against it (so far).

Its a mistake to think that biologists are immune from having pet theories either.

Since you have mentioned the (Ben Stein) movie.
I haven't seen it. I probably won't but from what I gather it's about the systematic squelching of any evidence/voices that may suggest anything other than the Darwin way of thinking.
That isn't the science that you describe above. In fact, it's more in line with what religious cults do. And I do believe that it's happening in our schools and that it is destructive when the goal is supposed to be science in it's truest form.

That's because you don't understand what evidence is. Suggesting is fine, but until there is something more than a conjecture, it doesn't qualify as worthy of teaching as science.

Yeah, we all know where evolution lacks evidence, so I won't dwell on it.
Why is an alein race a more acceptable idea to him when there is even less evidence of such a thing? At least theists have human history (and conjecture) on their side. It seems more like a grudge with religion.

He's not trying to make a case for aliens. He's saying that any complex being, such as a designer, even if alien, must also have come about through an evolutionary process.

Yes, and I suspect that that logic doesn't work as well with an omnipotent God figure that governs the very physical laws he's trying ,in theory, to hold himself to.

He's arguing against any natural phenomena being evidence for an ultimate designer. I doubt he is asserting an evolutionary process necessarily behind amino acid chirality in meteorites, and if he is he might be wrong - there are a couple of proposed non-evolutionary "scientific" explanations, and some recent work backs them up.
Why ? It's part of standard evolutionary theory, one of Dawkins's areas of interest.
Why not?