Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on November 26, 2007, 06:15:51 am
-
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/25/0430235.shtml
The Discovery Institute, more a lawyer mill than a scientific institution, copied Harvard University's BioVisions video 'The Inner Life of the Cell,' stripped out Harvard's copyright notice, credits, and narration, inserted their own creationist-friendly narration, and renamed the video 'The Cell As an Automated City.' The new title subtly suggests that a cell is designed rather than evolved
Of all the universities, they just had to plagarize from the university with the best law department in the world. :lol:
-
You were expecting a group that is essentially anti-thought to thoroughly think-through their actions?
-
Hmm. Nicely pwnt.
-
You were expecting a group that is essentially anti-thought to thoroughly think-through their actions?
Not really, but then again even the RIAA is smart enough to avoid Harvard.
-
Wow, some of those comments on Slashdot are really golden. :lol:
-
Of all the universities, they just had to plagarize from the university with the best law department in the world. :lol:
*sigh*. Im always surprised how low these guys go.
-
I hate it when people go and give us a bad name.
-
Then stand up and say that they don't speak for you. The reason that Christians get a bad rep is because not enough of the moderates are willing to stand up and say "I'm a Christian and I think you're full of bull****!"
Not you personally, you pretty much did that. But make sure you get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.
-
Lots of people DO that, but it doesn't get reported because its not good news. Doesn't create an issue... it ends one. And because Christians generally aren't internet/blog trolls, like the rest of us.
-
Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things. That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start. The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person. If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.
-
Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things. That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start. The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person. If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.
Wait, which part is this?
-
...get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.
These people are a bunch of idiots. There.
-
...get more other Christians to point out what a bunch of idiots these people are.
These people are a bunch of idiots. There.
Thirded.
-
Yeah, Kara, that's not how we handle things. That's how feuds, schisms, and wars start. The Bible very clearly lays down a process for dealing with Christians who aren't living in the likeness of Christ, and it doesn't involve making a scene and publically embarrassing a person. If I were to do what you would suggest, I would, myself, be giving Christians a bad name.
Wait, which part is this?
Matthew 18:15-20
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bebound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
-
Fine, do that then. :p
I don't see much of the taking it to the church and I don't see much of the church telling them they are wrong. I certainly don't see much of the "You don't speak for me, as far as I'm concerned you're a pagan."
-
I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.
Besides which, I don't think that a Christian needs to explain himself to someone who's already decided that all Christians are lawbreakers any more than an atheist needs to explain himself to someone who's decided that all atheists are babykillers.
Negative assumptions do not grant you a special right to make other people explain themselves.
-
I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.
Well, it certainly doesn't help that the most vocal Christians are invariably the biggest douchebags in that particular religion, same as every religion. The fact of the matter is that a group is always going to be judged by its loudest members, and that can't be helped. What can be helped is every rational person taking that fact in stride whenever some whackjob shoots his mouth off, and refraining from making snap judgments about a large group of people from just one example.
-
I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.
Besides which, I don't think that a Christian needs to explain himself to someone who's already decided that all Christians are lawbreakers any more than an atheist needs to explain himself to someone who's decided that all atheists are babykillers.
Negative assumptions do not grant you a special right to make other people explain themselves.
No they don't but if you're saying you hate those negative assumptions then maybe you should do something about it.
In case you didn't notice the first person to make any comment about these people giving Christians a bad name was GOatmaster himself. If he dislikes that Christians get a bad name cause of these idiots then his choices consist of sitting there annoyed about it or getting up and doing something about it.
If he wants to do the former then that's his choice but if some minority was giving FS2 players, or British people or atheists or any other group who I was a member of a bad reputation you can bet I'd point out that they were dickheads who didn't represent me.
-
Then stand up and say that they don't speak for you. The reason that Christians get a bad rep is because not enough of the moderates are willing to stand up and say "I'm a Christian and I think you're full of bull****!"
It pretty much goes without saying that you have to be a idiot of massive proportions to try to pull something like that. It's like yelling "They sky is blue." But, granted, some people have to be reminded of the simple truths every once and a while.
-
Actually no. It's not that simple.
America is the worst example of this. Look at the example of Intelligent Design (which these same guys were behind in fact). A bunch of idiots were able to subvert the education system of an appreciable part of the country by saying that a large percentage of the country were behind them and agreed that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.
They could never have done that if the majority of the Christians in the country had simply said "Shut up, you're talking bollocks" but that isn't what happened. The vast majority of Christians said nothing. It was left to the atheists and a small percentage of vocal Christians to say that ID was bull****. The fact that the majority of Christians didn't say anything allowed the Discovery Institute and their friends to present the whole thing as an assault on Christianity instead of what it actually was, an attempt to try to bring religion into science classes via the back door.
So this isn't a simple case of Christians unfairly getting a bad name due to the actions of a few. They are getting a bad name due to their own inaction. And that bad name may be deserved. We'll never know now just how many Christians were quiet because they believed in ID and how many were quiet simply because they couldn't be arsed. I tend to feel that the majority were actually of the latter group but while the majority say nothing we'll never know.
-
Why are we bigging up G0atmaster. He is still a Creationist, isnt he?
-
He's entitled to believe in whatever he wants. I'm simply making the point that if he dislikes other people presenting his religion in a bad light then maybe he should do something about it.
That said based on what he's said earlier he's not a Young Earth Creationist so he should agree that the Discovery Institute are full of ****.
-
...and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Am I the only one that finds this quote almost incredibly hilarious? :lol:
Especially considering the context with Kent Hovind...
-
Wasn't Matthew a tax man anyway?
-
Wasn't Matthew a tax man anyway?
Yeah, a Jewish tax collector working for the Roman governors.
-
I believe in ID. I don't believe Christ condones plagiarism.
-
That said based on what he's said earlier he's not a Young Earth Creationist so he should agree that the Discovery Institute are full of ****.
I dont see how that follows. Just because you support Intelligent Design doesnt mean you support YEC. There are many things in between YEC and ID. What does follow is that if you dont accept YEC or OEC chances are you dont accept ID either.
-
Fair enough, point proved. I was giving his earlier claims about science far too much credence. Won't happen again. :p
-
Fair enough, point proved. I was giving his earlier claims about science far too much credence. Won't happen again. :p
Thats 'kay. :) What was his earlier claim?
-
I'm too apathetic to make up my mind on what I believe as far as OEC or YEC. I go with what the Bible says, and it leaves that open to much interpretation on that point, so I take it as being one which is rather pointless to struggle over. It doesn't change who I am, it doesn't determine whether or not God loves me.
Yes, Matthew was a tax man before he was a disciple. The thing about tax collectors in those days was they basically made a living swindling people. They charged the people a much higher tax than the government at the time called for, and kept the difference for themselves. They'd charge a person, say, a 40% tax, when Caesar demanded a 10% tax. They'd give the 10% to Caesar, and keep the rest. They were despised by just about everyone alive then, Romans and Jews a like.
What it means, in non-churchy terms, is treat the person as if they weren't Christian if they don't turn from their sin when they're being confronted on it by a whole congregation of people.
Oh, and Kara, what does ID have to do about my earlier claims about believing in science? Last time I checked, 99% of the facts of the universe were still open to theory. My theory is that it's all far too complex to have happened by accident. Is that really so far-flung from the realm of possibility?
-
I don't see much of telling these generalizing people that not all Christians agree. It seems like if someone has already decided to go the route of assuming that all Christians think the same, they're not going to be convinced by one or two Christians claiming they 'disagree'. They could always rationalize that as them lying to save their reputation.
Besides which, I don't think that a Christian needs to explain himself to someone who's already decided that all Christians are lawbreakers any more than an atheist needs to explain himself to someone who's decided that all atheists are babykillers.
Negative assumptions do not grant you a special right to make other people explain themselves.
No they don't but if you're saying you hate those negative assumptions then maybe you should do something about it.
That's exactly what I'm doing here, isn't it? I can't go to each individual person on a case-by-case basis and refute every single misconception they have. I can, however, convince other people that those people should be held accountable for their generalizations. Slander and libel are really only dangerous if people accept it and don't think for themselves. If people think "Wait, he hasn't got any evidence to back that up", they've made the first step to realizing that the first person is, in fact, full of it.
In case you didn't notice the first person to make any comment about these people giving Christians a bad name was GOatmaster himself. If he dislikes that Christians get a bad name cause of these idiots then his choices consist of sitting there annoyed about it or getting up and doing something about it.
If he wants to do the former then that's his choice but if some minority was giving FS2 players, or British people or atheists or any other group who I was a member of a bad reputation you can bet I'd point out that they were dickheads who didn't represent me.
Or he could simply ignore it and move on. The Discovery Institute's ability to disseminate ID is aided by public attention. If the DI can turn things into a 'public attack on Christianity' because it's getting trash-talked by a bunch of people online, it'll just help it gain sympathy and support. If, on the other hand, it's simply handed a lawsuit by Harvard, it's nothing but a case of copyright infringement and plagiarism.
They could never have done that if the majority of the Christians in the country had simply said "Shut up, you're talking bollocks" but that isn't what happened. The vast majority of Christians said nothing. It was left to the atheists and a small percentage of vocal Christians to say that ID was bull****. The fact that the majority of Christians didn't say anything allowed the Discovery Institute and their friends to present the whole thing as an assault on Christianity instead of what it actually was, an attempt to try to bring religion into science classes via the back door.
No, it's the people who believed them who are at fault. They made the assumption that the DI represented the majority of Christians, and they were wrong. (EDIT: Though if the DI actually did claim to represent the majority of Christians, I'd say that they were at fault, for outright lying.)
So this isn't a simple case of Christians unfairly getting a bad name due to the actions of a few. They are getting a bad name due to their own inaction. And that bad name may be deserved. We'll never know now just how many Christians were quiet because they believed in ID and how many were quiet simply because they couldn't be arsed. I tend to feel that the majority were actually of the latter group but while the majority say nothing we'll never know.
All that kind of argument does is benefit the DI, because they can claim a greater association with those Christians. It also helps them stir up action from those Christians, because now they've got a bunch of people criticizing not just the DI, but those Christians who have done nothing but stay out of it. So instead of getting Christians to stand up for you because they've come to an educated decision, you're more likely to get them to come back with a knee-jerk defensive reaction.
You can't force people to care. If you think you can, I'd suggest you talk to politicians - they've had centuries of experience at trying to do just that. But even they haven't been able to get much voter turnout most of the time.
-
If pretty much every poll asked of middle America didn't show ID having mass support you might have a point. But that's the thing, it does have a lot of support.
This isn't something like the Flat Earth Society which will simply go away because it is ignored.
-
DI=Discovery Institute ID=Intelligent Design.
Make sure you've got your abbreviations correct there, Kara.
Like I said, my point wasn't that Christians aren't represented by ID, but that Christians aren't represented by DI, or rather their act of plagerism.
-
I have my abbreviations correct. The DI are the leading proponents of ID.
-
*ahem* The Bible is the leading proponent of ID. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31)
-
The bible is the leading proponent of creationism. ID doesn't make any claims what the designer is (or so they say). It could just as easily be aliens, Rama or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yet again I suspect I'm dealing with yet another person who claims to believe in ID but doesn't actually know what it is.
-
ID is a component of Creationism, hence the "Creation" part of the name.
-
Don't kid yourself. Creationism requires deities. ID does not.
-
If pretty much every poll asked of middle America didn't show ID having mass support you might have a point. But that's the thing, it does have a lot of support.
This isn't something like the Flat Earth Society which will simply go away because it is ignored.
So all this time that you've been claiming that GOatmaster and Christians need to speak out against their unfair reputation - you actually believe that it's the other way around, and that their views are pretty popular, and that there is 'mass support' for them?
I'm a little confused.
-
Basically I believe the reputation is well deserved. But if he feels otherwise he should prove it.
I'd be quite happy if the majority of America stood up tomorrow and said that ID was bull****. Won't happen, but I'd be happy if it did.
-
Giving these people attention is like feeding trolls.
YOU DONT DO IT
-
Well, considering that ID refers to the whole universe, and not just humanity, or even life on Earth, what could it be but a force outside of the universe? It couldn't be aliens, because something needs to have created the aliens. It couldn't be the Flying Spaghetti MonsterTM, because something would be needed to create that. It has to be something that is not created, I.E. God.
-
Let me ask you this, what is ID? What are the 3 main principles?
-
I have recently read an article about that episode. Karajorma, I agree with you. The Christians should have definetely done something, maybe they were afraid of being considered bad Christians or something like that.
American Christians sound like different Christians to me. The Vatican has accepted Darwin's theories, why would they continue to ignore theories that explain so many things? Why do they keep mentioning the ID?
Well, considering that ID refers to the whole universe, and not just humanity, or even life on Earth, what could it be but a force outside of the universe? It couldn't be aliens, because something needs to have created the aliens. It couldn't be the Flying Spaghetti MonsterTM, because something would be needed to create that. It has to be something that is not created, I.E. God.
On a side note, Vatican has also accepted the existance of aliens. The famous Cardinal Ruini mentioned one or more parts of the Bible in which God refers to the habitants of the Universe, not only of the world where we live.
-
I have recently read an article about that episode. Karajorma, I agree with you. The Christians should have definetely done something, maybe they were afraid of being considered bad Christians or something like that.
American Christians sound like different Christians to me. The Vatican has accepted Darwin's theories, why would they continue to ignore theories that explain so many things? Why do they keep mentioning the ID?
The Christian Right in America is a loose affiliation of different Christian groups each with often quite different views on the creation of the universe. They embrace ID because it allows them to teach Christianity in schools without having to resolve the question of whether the Young Earth or Old Earth Creationists are correct. It allows them to say that there must be a God without having to pick sides.
The Catholic Church on the other hand simply said that the Young Earth Creationists were wrong.
-
*ahem* The Bible is the leading proponent of ID. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31)
No, thats just religion. Intelligent Design doesnt just say the universe was created, it says there is scientific evidence of creation and that this is a valid scientific theory. Theres lots of Christian scientists that say ID is nonsence, but are still very religious. They are whats known as "Theistic Evolutionists", but they recognise that their religious beliefs arent science.
And the Discovery Institute could pretty much be said to be Intelligent Design itself, through having all the people that I can see that started the movement involved with it ie. Behe, Dembski and Jonathan wells. To say you believe in ID without following any of these guys you'd have to have pretty vague reasons for doing so since they hold all the arguments and pretty much started them all (aside from the ones they plagerised from Creationists)
Its not totally your fault you're confused, its what these guys want. Thats why they are calling it Intelligent Design and trying to distance themselves from Creationism. After all, if you ask a religious person if they believe the universe was intelligently designed they would answer yes, but thats not "Intelligent Design". Ignorence is what these people thrive on on and unfortunatly there are a lot of uninformed people around.
-
Which is why I always ask people who say that they believe in ID to explain to me what they think it is. I've never seen anyone actually repeat what these guys say it is yet.
Most people who say they believe in ID actually believe in creationism and don't actually know what ID is. They've simply been told that good Christians do believe in ID and follow the party line.
-
One thing I've never understood about ID is all the redundancies and evolutionary throwbacks that are present in most organisms, parts of the cell that are never activated, spurious DNA code etc. In many ways, I would have thought a creation intelligence would be a lot neater about the job they did, life really is a bit of a throw-together job.
-
One thing I've never understood about ID is all the redundancies and evolutionary throwbacks that are present in most organisms, parts of the cell that are never activated, spurious DNA code etc. In many ways, I would have thought a creation intelligence would be a lot neater about the job they did, life really is a bit of a throw-together job.
Oh, but you see, the answer to that is very simple. God The Designer implanted those imperfections to root out those of use who are not pure of spirit, to test us and make sure those whole believed in Intelligent Design were inquisitive, trusting and faithful.
Duh! :rolleyes:
-
One thing I've never understood about ID is all the redundancies and evolutionary throwbacks that are present in most organisms, parts of the cell that are never activated, spurious DNA code etc. In many ways, I would have thought a creation intelligence would be a lot neater about the job they did, life really is a bit of a throw-together job.
I've always liked the inactive viral code myself...
Yes, inactive viral code in your DNA. It's quite harmless, since it hasn't activated in a very long time, considering we share something like 20 such sequences with mice. Which also pretty much proves a common ancestor.
-
One thing I've never understood about ID is all the redundancies and evolutionary throwbacks that are present in most organisms, parts of the cell that are never activated, spurious DNA code etc. In many ways, I would have thought a creation intelligence would be a lot neater about the job they did, life really is a bit of a throw-together job.
Oh, but you see, the answer to that is very simple. God The Designer implanted those imperfections to root out those of use who are not pure of spirit, to test us and make sure those whole believed in Intelligent Design were inquisitive, trusting and faithful.
Duh! :rolleyes:
If the "Great Designer" was an engineer working for me, it would be fired. If it was working for microsoft, it would get a promotion.
-
One thing I've never understood about ID is all the redundancies and evolutionary throwbacks that are present in most organisms, parts of the cell that are never activated, spurious DNA code etc. In many ways, I would have thought a creation intelligence would be a lot neater about the job they did, life really is a bit of a throw-together job.
I've always liked the inactive viral code myself...
Yes, inactive viral code in your DNA. It's quite harmless, since it hasn't activated in a very long time, considering we share something like 20 such sequences with mice. Which also pretty much proves a common ancestor.
That's not what ID says though. Incidentally, it's not what evolution says either.
*Warning: Genetics lesson insertion* (Sooner or later you guys are either going to know as much about genetics as I do, or quit posting things that let me teach about it.. :P)
DNA has introns, and exons. Or, at least, that's how geneticists started diving it when they began looking at genomic sequences and nobody has yet bothered to get rid of those definitions because they are useful. Exons are sequences of DNA that code for RNA. They used to define it as DNA that codes for protein, but after the discovery of ribozymes (RNA that acts like protein) that is factually incorrect, so it's DNA that can be transcribed into RNA.
Introns are everything else.
Exons make up about 1-3% of your average genome in a complex eukaryote. The "simpler" you get, the higher percentage an exon makes up. Prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria) don't have introns [this is a big clue as to what introns do, because bacterial gene regulation is encoded in exons while eukaryote gene regulation is not]. Now, we used to think of introns as junk DNA sequences used for spacing which have just tripped around in the genome because they are sequences not under selection pressure. That's not true, entirely.
Introns are the regions in which regulatory mechanisms act on gene expression via enhancers, silencers, and modifiers. Now, there are also spacers in introns and areas that aren't under selection pressure (so they expand or constrict repeats, gain or lose viral DNA insertions, add translocations and delete regions, etc, ad nauseum) which is why some parts of intronic sequences are highly variant between individuals, but for the most part introns are essential parts of our genetic code. They aren't redundant or superficial at all.
In fact, evolutionary throwbacks in cells are a misnomer - pretty much all of the genes and structures in our cells are used in some vital way. Now, with evolution comes expanded function, so it is true that even in flies we see 3, 4, 5, up to 10 genes that appear to do the same thing, but in reality they all have slightly different functions but can replace each other at present. Another million or so years and their functions will be entirely divergent.
Actually, and I hate to say this, but the presence of intronic sequences doesn't actually put a nail in the ID coffin. It *cringe* is very efficient and elegant. Now, I call that a product of evolution and its really only a coincidence that ID got this part right (in fact, they didn't know they got it right when ID came about, it so so happens that advances since the 90s have shown this to be true and they kinda jumped on it as more evidence of a designer).
You're not wrong, there are many ancient viral (and bacterial, incidentally) insertions in the genetic code of higher organisms and we find them primarily in intronic sequences lacking regulatory mechanisms due to the absence of selection pressure, allowing them to shift around all the like without disrupting essential systems. That said, there really isn't much DNA in your average cell on Earth that is redundant, superfluous, or a throwback at all. I haven't seen revised estimates of DNA composition in about two years, but last I saw less than 10% of human DNA had no apparrent function.
-
Creationism requires deities. ID does not.
That's a claim that is often used by ID people to try and avoid being labeled as creationism.
Technically, ID and creationism both require the exact same thing - an unknown* conscious operator to plan things out. Creationists call it God and thus connect this operator to their particular religious mindset. ID doesn't specifically name the operator as anything else but operator, but there is little or no difference when you consider the difference between "God" and "operator" in terms of what they were supposedly doing or did long time ago.
There is no functional difference as far as biology is concerned.
Thus it's arguable that both the Intelligent Designer and God are essentially the same thing (again, functionally as far as biology is concerned). The God of Gaps. Perhaps an apt name in Olympian style would be "Orifices"?
Creationists also attribute a lot of other things to God, but when making comparisions with ID, that is of no consequence.
I think the biggest claimed difference between Intelligent Designer and God is that ID people claim the Designer to be a natural occurrence, just "unknown" as of now. Creationists offer God as a supernatural explanation. But in closer inspection, this difference can be broken down by showing that there is no such thing as "supernatural" apart from the nice creepy word used to introduce unnecessary mysticism to the matters.
Supernatural does not (and can not) exist, because all that is part of universe is natural. Thus, if God is part of universe, God is a natural phenomenon, not supernatural (regardless of God's attributes, whatever they would be). Also, being part of universe can be defined by whether or not something affects the universe or not. Thus, if God affects universe, God is part of universe and thus a natural phenomenon. If God doesn't affect the universe... well, there's no problem because in effect, God does'nt then exist in the universe.
Thus, if God isn't supernatural, we have this from the ID people:
-a naturally occurring intelligent (and thus apparently conscious*) operator that essentially planned life as we see it (or alternatively some stuff about Boromir and Faramir and Stewards of Gondor and how other beings have degenerated from them, or something like that)
And in comparision, we have this from Creationists:
*a conscious (and to some extent, intelligent) being who designed and lo behold, even made life as we see it (and some extra like all the extinct ones)
*a natural occurrence, because everything in the universe is just that
*all the other attributes from religious context - almighty, all-seeing, the old stuff.
They just call it God.
The only difference I can see between God and Designer is the huge amount of attributes associated with God, from religious context. But as far as biology and origin of species is concerned, there is no effective difference between the two. Or, at least I can't see it. If someone can point any obvious faults in my deduction, please be my guest. ;)
-
While I agree that pretty much every ID supporter believes that the Abrahamic God exists they like to state the theory to hide that fact so as to avoid it being obvious what they were up to.
However that's not the only possible answer ID spits out. Suppose we have a parallel universe. That universe isn't as "finely tuned" as this one. That one can be explained fairly easily using it's own physics. That universe is able to "seed" new universes by creating a big bang (I remember reading a paper once which said that something similar was actually possible with our universe and that if you could seed a black hole correctly it would create another universe linked to ours"
Now all you need is an intelligent alien species in the other universe who have the desire to meddle with our evolution and the technology to visit our universe (It would have to be pretty impressive technology, their laws of physics probably wouldn't apply in our universe). Hell if you only want to explain "finely tuned universe" and don't care about the other two concepts you don't even need the aliens to be able to influence this universe after the big bang, they simply set off the big bang and left the universe running.
As you can see you don't actually need an omnipotent deity for ID, you only need something intelligent. If you start playing with interactions between other universes you can come up with a host of theories that fit ID.
I've always thought that Flying Spaghetti Monster was the wrong way to go about satirising ID. Funny as it is something based on the aliens I mention could not only be just as funny but it would have the side effect of actually appearing more credible every time the ID people tried to push their point of view. :D