As the title says, Scientist want to discover intelligent life outside our solar systems. Yet, the scientific community deny the intelligent designer, who is God (which all three monotheistic religion believe in).
Have you noticed the odd similiarities. Yet, in some extremes, there are Christian who believe there are no intelligent life out there, and scientist who claim that there is no intelligent designer who created the universe.
IMO, I do believe there is intelligent life out there, and that there is an intelligent being who created the universe who is God.
While we monotheist believe in One God who created the universe, scientist try to find intelligent life outside our own world, and many of them believe in an intelligent alien race, or the sort.
I think it is very funny, that both sides try to disprove the other. I like to hear your comments about this subject.
If there was intelligent life somewhere else besides here on earth, I think God would have ensured that somebody mentioned it in the Bible. Since the Bible is silent on the matter, I believe that earth is the only place that God designed intelligent life to live; and He did not create any life elsewhere. Angels don’t count because they are spirits who do not have a body.
It is fun to speculate, but I tend to doubt that there is any other life out there that is like us in any way, ie with a soul, made in the image and likeness of the Creator. Whether there is or not, wouldn’t make a bit of difference in terms of our faith. I’m not sure I agree that the Bible would necessarily mention it in discreet terms. The universe is so huge that it just doesn’t seem possible that there isn’t a lot of life out there. Life may be some sort of universal imperative. The real question is whether it is life that is intelligent and has a soul.
Maybe. The distances are such that travel is pretty much out of the question. Even travel within our own system would be difficult, without there being some major developments in travel technologies, ie light speed and above. There’s an awful lot of space out yonder.
Not so fast – it’s possible extraterrestrial species never fell from grace at all (Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Dream of a Ridiculous Man is an excellent short story about such an occurrence, and what happens with the introduction of a fallen human) or fell and then had their own savior, their own divinely inspired bible, etc.
However, the big problems are space and time – how would we get there to meet them, and what’s the guarantee we’d arrive at their place (or vice versa) while they’re around? Billions of years is a long, long time
I’m addressing the part of the OP that I bolded. The “scientific community” does not deny any intelligent designer. There is no unified “scientific community”.
The current practice of science is to use measurable evidence to understand cause/effect situations in the physical world. “Science” does not, in any official capacity, comment on God, or the supernatural, which, by definition, are outside the realm of what science deals with.
While there are some vocal scientists who speak their opinions on these matters, that is not the same as the “science community” making a definitive statement.
There are also scientists that do believe in intelligent design that also speak out, offering their personal opinions on the subject.
What science will not and cannot do is default to “intelligent design” as an explanation, because that is not what science does. When you go to the doctor, you don’t want him/her to shrug and say…well, I guess you were just intelligently designed that way… you want them to use the knowledge we have about the physical universe to help you with your problem. That isn’t denying intelligent design, it is simply dealing with the current situation.
Yes, scientists do not want intelligent design taught in SCIENCE class, because it is not science, nor should it be treated as such, nor should people be taught to get into the habit of mistaking science with religion. They are both important, but they address different, albeit often related subjects.
The more we learn about the universe, the more it appears there is intelligence behind it, so what are you afraid of? If God is the author of the universe, every scientific discovery only serves to make Him appear more glorious, not less.
There are many scientists who are theists, and most of them will tell you, their studies only strengthen their faith. Please don’t make the mistake of branding science as anti-theistic, and the enemy, it’s place is not to prove or disprove the existence of God/creator/supreme being. It’s place is to provide information, people then use this information to support their belief system, and then blame “science” for the results.
The fact that some people use information discovered by using the scientific method as their “reason” not to believe in God, is their choice, not the doing of “science”. Just as many theists use such information as “proof” for intelligent design. Science creates the “bricks”, but it is up to us whether or not we use the “brick” to build a church or bash someone’s head in.
[quote=Mirdath]Not so fast – it’s possible extraterrestrial species never fell from grace at all (Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Dream of a Ridiculous Man is an excellent short story about such an occurrence, and what happens with the introduction of a fallen human) or fell and then had their own savior, their own divinely inspired bible, etc.
C. S. Lewis had much the same idea. His space trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength dealt with alien life that had not fallen, but had either preceded human beings in the universe or came after, and so looked like us except for being green (which may have meant they weren’t animal beings but vegetable, but Lewis never made that clear).
However, the big problems are space and time – how would we get there to meet them, and what’s the guarantee we’d arrive at their place (or vice versa) while they’re around? Billions of years is a long, long time.
Carl Sagan voiced this in his series Cosmos. And Lewis cited these facts as showing that perhaps God wished us to be isolated from any other life on other planets, intelligent or not, because we fallen human beings would contaminate other worlds with our sin–another theme of his space trilogy.
And cheddarsox is right. Science is the study of the discernible universe not a study of religion or philosophy. Nor are all scientists convinced that there must be intelligent life on other planets. Unless or until such life is discovered science really cannot say with any certainty that there is any such life elsewhere. All that anyone, scientist or layman can say is that it may be possible. However, the ramifications of such life on other worlds is another matter altogether and would really have nothing to do with pure science but with issues of faith, philosophy, and ethics.
I think that life is a rare phenomenon in the universe. But in order to provide a satisfactory answer to this question, first we have to understand the question of the origin of life on Earth. Sadly, little progress has been made in this area through scientific inquiry. It seems to me that the appearance of life on Earth can be regarded as a near miracle.
Hehe. Is is the atheist scientist’s dilemma: What are the odds of a near zero percent chance event times a nearly infinite number of chances happening?
It depends on whether he thinks near-zero probability is greater than near-infinite time! Or vice versa.
Personally, I doubt there is other life out there. But Scripture and Tradition are both silent on the matter. So if we found intelligent life, we’d probably have to think some. For starters, if we found them to be basically human, we’d have to treat them as mission territory (and REALLY wonder how THAT happened). If they were totally different, we’d probably have to evaluate their culture to see if it shows signs of being basically good, but fallen like we are. If so, I’d say also mission territory!
[quote=Alan Guth]To understand the nature of the problem, it is useful to think about the integers as a model system with an infinite number of entities. We can ask, for example, what fraction of the integers are odd. With the usual ordering of the integers, 1, 2, 3, . . . , it seems obvious that the answer is 1/2. However, the same set of integers can be ordered by writing two odd integers followed by one even integer, as in 1,3, 2, 5,7, 4, 9,11, 6 , . . . . Taken in this order, it looks like 2/3 of the integers are odd.
He also mentions earlier…
In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes trivial—anything is possible, unless it violates some absolute conservation law. To extract predictions from the theory, we must therefore learn to distinguish the probable from the improbable.
The aethiest scientist school are not always right.
I know of an aethiest scientist who objects the the theory of the Big Bang because it is what he calls a ‘creationist’ theory, that is, it supports the view of an intelligent being having caused the first event.
Recent research by the world’s most iminent scientists, using very fine instruments and the International Space Station, supports the theory of the Big Bang.
Just goes to show how desperate some scientists are.
If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the big bang. We are exploring a new theory based on a 15-year-old notion that the universe went through a stage of inflation. During that time, the theory holds, the cosmos became exponentially large within an infinitesimal fraction of a second. At the end of this period, the universe continued its evolution according to the big bang model. As workers refined this inflationary scenario, they uncovered some surprising consequences. One of them constitutes a fundamental change in how the cosmos is seen. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being an expanding ball of fire the universe is a huge, growing fractal.
It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more balls, ad infinitum.
Although this scenario makes the existence of the initial big bang almost irrelevant, for all practical purposes, one can consider the moment of formation of each inflationary bubble as a new “big bang.” From this perspective, inflation is not a part of the big bang theory, as we thought 15 years ago. On the contrary, the big bang is a part of the inflationary model.