UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 26

Still Wrong

From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:43:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:43:34 -0500
Subject: Still Wrong

Source: Joshua Rosenau's Blog - New York, New York, USA


January 26, 2007

Category: Culture Wars

Still Wrong
by Josh Rosenau

Roddy Bullock repeats some questions, as if they get more
interesting the millionth time:

"Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen
intelligent being and searches outer space for confirming
material evidence?

Answer: A scientist.

Question: What do you call a person who hypothesizes an unseen
intelligent being and searches inner space for confirming
material evidence?

Answer: A religious nut."

What he's trying to do in repeating this pair of questions
twice, is to suggest that the search for extraterrestrial life
is the same as what IDolators do. And so long as you ask the
wrong questions, the two could bear some resemblance. But here
are the right questions:

What do you call a person who hypothesizes intelligent life like
his/her own and searches the sky for data to test that

What do you call a person who assumes a supernatural being
crafted the universe to be just-so, and forces anything and
everything to fit that assumption?

The answers are the same as what Bullock offered.

He continues:

"Surprised? You should be. How can the exact same methodology be
both touted as scientific and doubted as religious? Are radio
telescopes searching for Morse code-like evidence of space
aliens inherently scientific while electron microscopes
discovering source code-like evidence of design in the cell are
not? Why are alien hunters with the Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence (SETI) permitted to infer intelligence if ever they
find evidence of specified complexity, but microbiologists who
actually find such evidence are lambasted for inferring the same

SETI doesn't look for specified complexity. They look for
simplicity. And any inference of intelligence that they make is
based on a set of hypotheses about the natural intelligences
that we know about, not about beings unbound by natural laws.

SETI researchers think about what sort of signal they would
send, and look for signals like that. They do not use Demsbki's
bogus formulae, nor do they use his explanatory filter, let
alone Behe's irreducible complexity. They look for patterns that
match what they think an intelligence like their own would

We know of nothing but evolutionary processes that could
possibly have produced DNA, flagella, or any other biological
phenomenon. That isn't to say that we stop looking, it means
that we have to demonstrate that a mechanism is physically and
biologically possible before we would invoke it as an
explanation. IDolators skip that step.

We know nothing about what a supernatural creator could possibly
do, nor what sorts of things such a being might choose to
create. They offer no mechanism, and try to treat their lack of
a mechanism as some sort of virtue. It is not. Without a
mechanism, it's impossible to suggest what their designer
wouldn't do, and without knowing that, it's impossible to
falsify design.

And that is why scientists and "religious nuts" are different.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com