[quote name='GeneralQuery' timestamp='1356027744' post='5012867']
Intelligent Design as a movement has a very specific meaning (CE linked you to a comprehensive Wiki article on the topic).

I imagine a lot of Americans view Islam as a movement with a very specific meaning too; that doesn't make it less ignorant. This is totally an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
[/quote]
Expecting people to stick to well defined and commonly understood terminology is not an "argumentum ad populum", it's the prerequisite to rational discourse.

Edit: accidentally a word

This thread is fascinating, I'm learning so many new debate and logic terms

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1356011514' post='5012793']
And I agree with ChaosEngine that "Intelligent Design" generally means something quite specific. Sure, we can talk about something more general like "the space-time that we inhabit having been designed intelligently", but it's a rather small set of religious people who believe specifically that, and as I say, I doubt any other religious people would change their views to start worshipping these aliens. And it seems rather odd to pretend that such aliens would have been the Christian God/Jesus, or whatever, all along.

Both of your posts are totally ignorant of a huge dialogue that's been happening through the catholic church in recent history. This is like listening to Rush Limbaugh telling a Shia what Islam really is.
[/quote]

I thought Intelligent Design was Protestant in origin. The Catholic Church supports it but that's a different thing than they created it. And being honest, Intelligent Design has been about giving credibility to the creation stories. If Intelligent Design has about God creating a set of scientific laws with which the universe is governed by, then a lot of scientists would be willing to give that chance. Some scientists may even embrace it wholeheartedly because it allows their knowledge and their faith to harmoniously co-exist. So in short, if originally, Intelligent Design == Deistic Evolution, then the world could have been a better place.

It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer,

Just for the record, the universe is not "perfect" for life. The percentage of the universe that is suitable for our kind of life is so vanishingly small that it's statistically insignificant. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that 100% * of the universe is utterly hostile to life as we know it.

*99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% if you want to be pedantic

In terms of the universe, I would define "life" as any living organism, not just Earth-based humans and animals. With that said, you can shave off two of those "9"s, lol.

It's true there is the debate about how the Universe seems apparently "perfect" for life, but science doesn't have an answer,

Just for the record, the universe is not "perfect" for life. The percentage of the universe that is suitable for our kind of life is so vanishingly small that it's statistically insignificant. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to say that 100% * of the universe is utterly hostile to life as we know it.

*99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% if you want to be pedantic

Plus it's a prime example of puddle thinking:

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

That our universe can be habitable for life does not mean that it was designed for life. If it wasn't capable of being habitable for life then we wouldn't be around to notice this fact.

In terms of the universe, I would define "life" as any living organism, not just Earth-based humans and animals. With that said, you can shave off two of those "9"s, lol.

The problem is defining "living". It's ambiguous as to where non-life ends and life begins and it would appear that this is more of a gradient than a binary state.

Microbes and amoebas are "life". Paper and anvils are not "life". That's the minimum requirement for my definition.

I love this thread


Simulation hypothesis -> viability of simulation in realtime vs. computational time
\-> intelligent design -> definition of intelligent design -> logical fallacies
\-> suitability of universe for life -> definition of life


plus an entire sub thread debating the ethics of "wasting research resources on this" (like we're in starcraft or something )

Microbes and amoebas are "life". Paper and anvils are not "life". That's the minimum requirement for my definition.

At what point do organic molecules become life? Any boundary you impose is completely arbitrary. What makes one chemical reaction "alive" and another not, and what is the precise crossover point? There is no clear answer. Thinking in binary terms only results in logical inconsistencies.