UFO's and Intelligent Design

[julianpenrod]

Julian Penrod

4 Fairfield Avenue

West Caldwell, New Jersey 07005

(973) 220-1601

julianpenrod@comcast.net

October 16, 2005

Letters to the Editor

Dear sirs:

There can be many levels to an issue, and, unless you look at all of them, you cannot necessarily be said completely to understand them.

The issue of Intelligent Design being taught in classrooms alongside evolution, in explaining the presence of the many species of animals and plants on earth, has become a point of great contention. Opponents to Intelligent Design cast it as just another attempt at introducing religion into the classroom; proponents marshal the forces of powerful evangelical groups, and politicians favorable to their agendas, in their campaign. Those who denounce Intelligent Design characterize the idea as "unscientific" and its followers as, at best, "deluded". Those who seek to place Intelligent Design in textbooks describe opponents as hypocritical, denying the right to consider alternative concepts, that might lead to the truth.

Following on the heels of the Scopes Trial and creationism, Intelligent Design does, in fact, appear to be just a more sophisticated attempt at at least placating evangelical fundamentalists.

Their place in the push to promote the idea, though, tragically undercuts something very important, namely, the genuinely valid aspects of the idea!

In fact, it's been known for some time that Darwinian evolution was full of holes, and nothing seems to be preventing those holes from getting larger and larger. But evolution is not just Darwinian, other forms have been proposed, over time. For Intelligent Design to be taken more seriously, flaws in the idea of change of species, and creation of species, over time, to be shown untenable.

But there are a number of ways of approaching the discussion of the intervention of an omnipotent being in the existence of life in the universe. One is the issue that, by Intelligent Design, the creation of life is divine, and not something that is possible spontaneously, through particular conditions of inanimate materials. That would mean that something more than just the right combination of chemicals, under the right conditions of heat, moisture, atmospheric pressure and so on, is necessary for life to come into being. And that would mean that many worlds on which such supposedly life inducing conditions exist would fail to produce life. And evidence in that line would be the absence of demonstrated life elsewhere in the universe!

A universe in which there was a patent lack of life, where, in fact, only one world held life, would argue strongly that life is something provided only by an all-powerful being!

And, here, science seems to provide its own evidence favoring Intelligent Design!

For all that science claims life could exist elsewhere in the universe, it seems to do its level best to deny any evidence for that life exists!

About the only thing that constant published attempts at contacting alien life seems to have yielded is failure! The SETI project has not turned up anything that has been classified as something other than “noise”. Items such as strangely oscillating “bunny-eared” figures, rotini shaped fossils, mile long rotini like “tunnels” and “banyan tree” like objects, all observed on Mars, have been discounted as inanimate, and the date to actually reaching the planet has been repeatedly set further and further back, apparently to prevent the truth getting out. UFO stories are filled with references to Zeta Reticuli “greys”; lizard-like “reptiloids”; sophisticated Nephilim; Nibiru - “Planet X” - Area 51; Dulce, New Mexico - where a colony of greys and reptiloids are supposedly being kept in an underground base - Project Majestic - in which Dwight Eisenhower signed a pact with the greys, allowing them to abduct humans for experiments unimpeded, in exchange for tidbits of their technology - the “hollow earth” and Indrid Cold, but, in each case, science has steadfastly insisted that they were all mistakes, imagination or lies!

But science’s supposedly authoritative reluctance to acknowledge any suggestions of signs of life elsewhere in the universe seems to have actually played a large part in setting the stage for the questioning of their reliability in discussing life on earth! Their pet project of denouncing all signs of life as “nonsense” has all but defined the uiverse as devoid of living beings everywhere except the earth!

And that is completely consistent with Intelligent Design!

Science, then, is on the horns of a very genuine dilemma, either acknowledge and announce the discovery of life elsewhere in the cosmos, or agree that there is fundamental legitimacy, as presented, in Intelligent Design!

However science chooses to dig its way out of the hole its evident widespread arrogance and short-sightedness seems to have dug it into, the public have to refuse utterly to allow themselves to give up their right to see the truth for themselves! Too many have made science their convenient substitute for genuine involvement in learning the truth, and, when that happens, a person can become the literal slave of those who will then be free to impose whatever pleases their vanity to impose! One of the things people must not give up is their right to think for themselves!

Julian Penrod

[Radioactive Man]

Okay, I was following you up to the point about UFO's. For the stuff before it - science is not "arrogant" or "short-sighted." Science is something that humans study, and they are limited by the facts presented to them. You have no proof, and there "is" no proof, for intelligent design. And these "holes" in evolution. I've been hearing about these alot - what exactly are they?

Now about the UFO's. I notice that you wrote this as a letter to the editor, and I think you probably lost all credibility with those statements. I am a skeptic, but I love the thought of alien life. But let's get real here for a moment. The U.S., not to mention other world powers, can't keep a secret for ten years, much less fifty. All these aliens that you discussed - like intelligent design, there is no proof of their existance other than opinion, which, in my opinion, is flawed. Prove me wrong.

Edited October 29, 2005 by hechtal

[I AAAM]

Okay, I was following you up to the point about UFO's. For the stuff before it - science is not "arrogant" or "short-sighted." Science is something that humans study, and they are limited by the facts presented to them. You have no proof, and there "is" no proof, for intelligent design. And these "holes" in evolution. I've been hearing about these alot - what exactly are they?

Now about the UFO's. I notice that you wrote this as a letter to the editor, and I think you probably lost all credibility with those statements. I am a skeptic, but I love the thought of alien life. But let's get real here for a moment. The U.S., not to mention other world powers, can't keep a secret for ten years, much less fifty. All these aliens that you discussed - like intelligent design, there is no proof of their existance other than opinion, which, in my opinion, is flawed. Prove me wrong.

Hello Heckle!

Are you sure that you have all your facts correct? Have you read the following perhaps which can throw some light on your skeptic view? Please indulge in open midedness before you comment with negative answers to welcome new people to these forums with.

The Genesis Race By:Will Heart

[Radioactive Man]

The thing is with books....they can be made up...and as far as "heckling," - just because someone is new [or not], I'm not obligated to smile and agree with them. I'm smiling, and disagreeing!

Edited October 29, 2005 by hechtal

[I AAAM]

The thing is with books....they can be made up...and as far as "heckling," - just because someone is new [or not], I'm not obligated to smile and agree with them. I'm smiling, and disagreeing!

I would like to throw you the challenge of reading this book, and then to see what your reply would be.

Sure things can be made up in books but you cant judje a book by it's cover, nor can you know it's message untill one reads it. I am sure that you could find one at your local library.

The book covers the following subjects:

Shows that Earth was visited by an extraterrestrial race who bioengineered modern man in its image and taught man how to construct the pyramids:

Examines the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution and presents startling new evidence of intelligent intervention

Reveals the messages coded in the pyramids left by the ancients concerning impending Earth changes at the end of the Mayan calendar

May you go through life with your eyes open, and kindness in your heart....

[julianpenrod]

Julian Penrod

4 Fairfield Avenue

West Caldwell, New Jersey 07006

(973) 220-1601

julianpenrod@comcast.net

October 29, 2005

To all:

Hechtal takes me to task for everything in my post from my description of science as "arrogant" and "short-sighted" to my invoking of "holes" in evolution, my reference to Intelligent Design and my bringing up the subject of alien life. It might have been better, though, if they had done it in a coherent manner.

Framing their post as a counter to my post, hechtal's statements come across more as a floundering blanket dismissal of me, period.

"You probably lost all credibility" they claim, presumably as a result of my having written what I said in the form of a letter to the editor. They take issue with my describing science as "arrogant" and "short-sighted". They bridle at the mention of "holes" in evolution, and dares me, "what exactly are they?" Then dashes ahead to describe the opinion that aliens exist as "flawed". And, overall, hechtal seems to scramble to give the impression that I am, somehow trying to claim both that aliens exist and that Intelligent Design is provable. It might have helped if hechtal had actually read my post, too.

Because they would see that, among other things, I acknowledged that Intelligent Design is likely yet another attempt by the evangelical movement to interject faith into the public classroom. And the point of my letter to the editor was that the utter and complete lack of aliens would indeed imply that life on earth is somehow special. Unique beyond even the presumed conditions on the early earth! That, for some reason, even though innumerable other planets began with the same circumstances as earth. something - other than the action of natural laws! - caused life to arise only on earth! And that is no more than half a step from the invocation of a supernatural originator of life! I pointed out that those desperately trying to cast doubt on the existence of alien life were actually also strengthening the case for a Supreme Being superceding natural law, to cause only earth to have living creatures! I saw no trace of critique of that particular argument in hechtal's post, however!

With respect to points hechtal did raise, though, many things can be said.

Hechtal condemns my saying that science is "arrogant" and "short-sighted". Did hechtal for a single moment consider that I might be saying, poetically, that scientists are arrogant and short-sighted? And the denunciation of anything that transcends their 'Vioxx is safe for you" pseudo-sophistry is indeed attacked with venom by people calling themselves scientists, in the manner of the arrogant and limited in scope. But let's consider the idea of science being "arrogant" and "short-sighted", as a belief system. It is, after all, possible for a form of thinking to have qualities like contempt, viciousness and malevolence, if it is founded in them and geared toward exhibiting them.

Science declares that the only thing it will consider are those phenomena that can be "proved". And, by "proved", science - at least as defined by scientists - tends to mean anything that can be monitored and measured by inanimate devices! Anything animate they automatically define as "misled in their impressions by personal bias". Only inanimate things merit "scientists" respect! And the only phenomena they acknowledge are those that they can harness and reproduce themelves, through the mediation of inanimate machinery. If they can't make a machine that Wall Street can make a mint on out of a concept, that concept doesn't exist. Science defines the only things it accepts as being things that are "provable". Anything that isn't "provable", even if it exists, science dismisses as de facto meaningless and worthless. In fact, science asserts that then only things that are present are those that can be "proven". It denies the significance, and even the existence, of anything that can't be "proven". Or harnessed into slavish response by an inanimate machine. Science utterly refuses to even acknowledge the likelihood of phenomena that are not eminently predictable, or at least generally describable, "provable" and invocable at will. Science absolutely insists that only those phenomena that fall within the purview of its strict system of examination do not merit consideration. And then science declares that it answers all questions and solves all problems! Anyone who acknowledges the potential significance of anything other than what science is prepared to handle, in its constrained fashion, is automatically denounced by both scientists and science!

Very simple to describe yourself as being able to answer all questions, if you "define" any questions you can't answer as meaningless!

How much change did Ed Brady of Wichita, Kansas have in his left trouser pocket at 3:16 p.m., on August 17, 1948? How does science answer that question? That situation existed, therefore, it must have properties that science acknowledges? Where is science's answer to that? There seems no proof for any reply to this, yet one supposedly did exist! There must be an answer, or else you will have to admit that the world didn't exist then, and only came into existence afterward. And that is what Intelligent Design claims!

Indeed, it is the height of arrogance to claim, without having God's own signature to verify it, that only the mechanically observable and mechanically reproducible exists or is worthy of consideration! Frankly, science does come across as more of a snake oil salesman than anything else, someone of limited background and expertise, trying to pass off the leftovers on their shelves as a "solution" for a problem! Those truly devoted to truth would not dismiss the presence of things that might not march to the tune of having to be "provable", predictable and mechanically reproducible!

The holes in evolution are legion.

Among other things, a critical facet of evolution is that, to get to a particular form, you get to get halfway there. There are many animal forms that are ideally suited to the life they live, but which, if certain features were erased, would not be fit to live anywhere! Beavers, for example, have a complex digestive system in which pockets of bacteria at certain spots free up nutrients from cellulose, but only after that cellulose is broken down by their digestive tract. That means they must literally eat their own feces a second time, to release the nutrition! What system would favor an animal that is already able to subsist on what is available into something that has to defecate then re-ingest plant matter? How would they even know they should do that? Most animals don't seem to have a fondness for their feces; what would prompt an animal to do that, to start on the path to what the beaver is today? The bear, too, is enormously specialized in its response to the cold, allowing it to hibernate. But it must have come from an animal that didn't have those specializations. If it had only part of the qualities necessary to hibernate, it wouldn't be able to survive a wintry climate, and would be uncomfortable in a hot climate. Where did it live, while it was developing the specific suite of characteristics to help it hibernate? And, if it was living somewhere else, why did it adapt to a wintry climate? Why are animals, like fish, in lightless cave environments blind and colorless? The simple, and short-sighted, answer is that they don't need to have color or sight in the blackness. But evolution supposedly acts to promote those qualities that benefit the animal and eliminate those that don't. Eyes and color may not benefit an animal in the dark, but they don't inhibit them, either! An animal with eyes in a black environment would not use them, they would just be there. There would be no reason for them to be taken away. They may not serve the animal but they don't disadvantage the animal either! The same with coloration. If nothing can see you, you can be bright yellow and not be in danger! The only reason these qualities would be taken away is if evolution literally thought to itself that they weren't serving any purpose, so they might as well be disposed of. And that is attributing to evolution the qualities of an Intelligent Designer! And, in fact, many different qualities seem to have exactly the same degree of protection for animals, yet only one has persisted. Fawns, for example, could be assisted by any number of differing colorings, not just white spots on dark, yet that is the only coloration to be found.

And the proposed development of the interaction of insect and pollen bearing flower is particularly questionable. As with so much “defense” of evolution, it rests solely on the fact that “the system works”, therefore, it is insisted, evolution must have brought it about. After all, something that works for the survival of the species wouldn’t develop a system that doesn’t work! But that carefully ignores the crucial issue that, in order to get to this point, it would have to go through numerous previous steps. But flowers didn’t know insects were there to develop a means of attracting them, to get them to spread pollen. Why, then, did flowers develop nectar to draw insects? Why didn’t they just opt for developing a more direct means of pollinating each other directly? And, if the offer of nectar worked so well, why add in such things as scent and colors the insects would recognize? At every step leading up to the present system, conditions were such that “advantages” were at best minimal, and each step was extremely tenuous.

Indeed, the very idea of development by minute steps is questionable. Any change small enough not to have interfered with the creature’s systems would, likely, also have been minor enough not to greatly advantage it. Even if a change was advantageous, it would still be so minimally desirable that it would be extremely unlikely that it would do an animal that much good. Many animals with such an alteration would be needed, for any kind of significant number to benefit. So not only would the development of a non-fatal mutation be rare, the actual advantaging of an animal by that particular mutation would be uncommon, as well! The times ascribed to evolution, in fact, indicate that it frankly sped along!

Hechtal also invokes a common "excuse" for believing what the government tells us about UFO's. "The U.S., not to mention other world powers", Hechtal declaims, professorially, "can't keep a secret for ten years, much less fifty." Those who proclaim as much confidence in science as hechtal indicates are often sticklers for "proof". Here is hechtal's chance. Prove that statement! Find a secret the the government was trying to keep for fifty years, yet failed to! Don't just repeat anything that came to light! They could just as well have spilled the beans on certain matters because they wanted the public to believe that they can't keep a secret! Hechtal will have to demonstrate that those secrets that came to light weren't really just red herrings, and they will have to provide absolutely irrefutable evidence that there are no secrets that government truly tried to withhold, that they nonetheless failed to keep from becoming public. In other words, hechtal will have to prove that there are absolutely no secrets in the government archives that are more than fifty years old!

And, as a point in passing, contrary to what hechtal said, an opinion cannot be "flawed"!

When pursuing the truth, you cannot allow yourself to be led astray by unfounded, personal claims of superiority or disbelief by those merely seeking to oppose you.

Julian Penrod

[hyperactive]

All these aliens that you discussed - like intelligent design, there is no proof of their existance other than opinion, which, in my opinion, is flawed. Prove me wrong.

i am in agreement with you. the common theme to all the ideas of 'creation' or 'intervention' revolve around trying to explain what we do not yet understand and nothing more. After all this time no evidence to support any kind of outside involvement has been found.

[xstortionist]

Shows that Earth was visited by an extraterrestrial race who bioengineered modern man in its image and taught man how to construct the pyramids:

Examines the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution and presents startling new evidence of intelligent intervention

Reveals the messages coded in the pyramids left by the ancients concerning impending Earth changes at the end of the Mayan calendar

May you go through life with your eyes open, and kindness in your heart....

this statement and this book will probably be the worst evidence and theory for the development of life on this planet. The reason why is because why would a race of another world come here and bioengineer us and then with their powerful technology just teach us how to make a pyramid and leave and not come back for however many years....come on be realistic here. Why wouldn't they teach them how to build more modern day structures. Because I can doubt that aliens are living in pyramids made like the ones of today. This book shows no evidence what so ever and i hope it will never be used for factual information in the near future. The book is on my SH#T LIST and i will not buy it and i hope the same for others on this site. To me this book is nothing but fiction.