Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SETI and Intelligent Design
space.com ^ | posted: 01 December 2005 | Seth Shostak

Posted on 12/02/2005 8:35:59 AM PST by ckilmer

SETI and Intelligent Design

By Seth Shostak
SETI Institute
posted: 01 December 2005
06:37 am ET

If you’re an inveterate tube-o-phile, you may remember the episode of "Cheers" in which Cliff, the postman who’s stayed by neither snow, nor rain, nor gloom of night from his appointed rounds of beer, exclaims to Norm that he’s found a potato that looks like Richard Nixon’s head.

This could be an astonishing attempt by taters to express their political views, but Norm is unimpressed. Finding evidence of complexity (the Nixon physiognomy) in a natural setting (the spud), and inferring some deliberate, magical mechanism behind it all, would be a leap from the doubtful to the divine, and in this case, Norm feels, unwarranted.

Cliff, however, would have some sympathizers among the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), whose efforts to influence school science curricula continue to swill large quantities of newspaper ink. As just about everyone is aware, these folks use similar logic to infer a "designer" behind such biological constructions as DNA or the human eye. The apparent complexity of the product is offered as proof of deliberate blueprinting by an unknown creator—conscious action, presumably from outside the universe itself.

What many readers will not know is that SETI research has been offered up in support of Intelligent Design.

The way this happens is as follows. When ID advocates posit that DNA—which is a complicated, molecular blueprint—is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.

But the adherents of Intelligent Design protest the protest. They point to SETI and say, "upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn’t their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning—a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?" And SETI, they would note, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance.

If we as SETI researchers admit this is so, it sounds as if we’re guilty of promoting a logical double standard. If the ID folks aren’t allowed to claim intelligent design when pointing to DNA, how can we hope to claim intelligent design on the basis of a complex radio signal? It’s true that SETI is well regarded by the scientific community, but is that simply because we don’t suggest that the voice behind the microphone could be God?

Simple Signals

In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We’re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens’ version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation—or message—that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.

And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it. It sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents. Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we’re still going to say that we’ve found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with that, why can’t they?

Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add – for example, DNA’s junk and redundancy.

Consider pulsars – stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn’t have much to say. Regular pulses don’t convey any information—no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That’s bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously more efficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI.

Imagine bright reflections of the Sun flashing off Lake Victoria, and seen from great distance. These would be similar to pulsar signals: highly regular (once ever 24 hours), and visible in preferred directions, but occupying a wide chunk of the optical spectrum. It’s not a very good hailing-signal or communications device. Lightning bolts are another example. They produce pulses of both light and radio, but the broadcast extends over just about the whole electromagnetic spectrum. That sort of bad engineering is easily recognized and laid at nature’s door. Nature, for its part, seems unoffended.

Junk, redundancy, and inefficiency characterize astrophysical signals. It seems they characterize cells and sea lions, too. These biological constructions have lots of superfluous and redundant parts, and are a long way from being optimally built or operated. They also resemble lots of other things that may be either contemporaries or historical precedents.

So that’s one point: the signals SETI seeks are really not like other examples drawn from the bestiary of complex astrophysical phenomena. That speaks to their artificiality.

The Importance of Setting

There’s another hallmark of artificiality we consider in SETI, and it’s context. Where is the signal found? Our searches often concentrate on nearby Sun-like star systems – the very type of astronomical locale we believe most likely to harbor Earth-size planets awash in liquid water. That’s where we hope to find a signal. The physics of solar systems is that of hot plasmas (stars), cool hydrocarbon gasses (big planets), and cold rock (small planets). These do not produce, so far as we can either theorize or observe, monochromatic radio signals belched into space with powers of ten billion watts or more—the type of signal we look for in SETI experiments. It’s hard to imagine how they would do this, and observations confirm that it just doesn’t seem to be their thing.

Context is important, crucially important. Imagine that we should espy a giant, green square in one of these neighboring solar systems. That would surely meet our criteria for artificiality. But a square is not overly complex. Only in the context of finding it in someone’s solar system does its minimum complexity become indicative of intelligence.

In archaeology, context is the basis of many discoveries that are imputed to the deliberate workings of intelligence. If I find a rock chipped in such a way as to give it a sharp edge, and the discovery is made in a cave, I am seduced into ascribing this to tool use by distant, fetid and furry ancestors. It is the context of the cave that makes this assumption far more likely then an alternative scenario in which I assume that the random grinding and splitting of rock has resulted in this useful geometry.

In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; id; intelligentdesign; panspermia; seti; ufo; ufos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-214 next last
it is curious that seti is accepted in the scientific community and id is not
1 posted on 12/02/2005 8:36:00 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
I remember an old episode of Cheers ...
In which Cliff Clavin was shown to be rather stupid ...
And that's why Intelligent Design is so silly ...

Straw man, anyone?.

2 posted on 12/02/2005 8:40:05 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Do you know Seth? If you do, tell him thanks for the great article :-)


3 posted on 12/02/2005 8:40:08 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

The difference is that we can find concrete evidence through SETI, but not through ID.


4 posted on 12/02/2005 8:41:06 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Morning ping. Even if this isn't worthy of cranking up the ping machine, this should be archived as a means of comparing good vs. bad/bogus science in the context of the ID debate.


5 posted on 12/02/2005 8:42:17 AM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

"Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as
the slowest buffalo and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones
at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a
whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by
the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain
can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive
drinking of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and
weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates
the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And
that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers."


6 posted on 12/02/2005 8:43:42 AM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Does anyone know what the radio frequencies from Earth would "look like" if someone was in another star system doing the same, SETI-like experiment?


7 posted on 12/02/2005 8:50:33 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

"All your intelligent design are belong to me"

8 posted on 12/02/2005 8:52:10 AM PST by add925 (The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist. By the way SETI did have one important function. It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

ID is just as valid as any conceptual theory and probably fits the current, factual information better than other more traditionally held theories. SETI is probably worried that their funding might be cut if they do not support the politically correct version of reporting.


9 posted on 12/02/2005 8:52:18 AM PST by ProfSci (An Actual Scientist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

SETI must be going reeeeeal slow these days. Shostak has a lot of time on his hands to weave strawmans to peddle.

That's before actually tackling questions of ID's validity. He's just a sloppy debater who skates by on an inflated impression of his reputation.


10 posted on 12/02/2005 8:52:46 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality.
//////////////////
this is a gob smaker. so the signature of intelligence is its artificiality.


11 posted on 12/02/2005 8:57:14 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Have you tried looking closely at your lawn, you'll find more there than at SETI.
12 posted on 12/02/2005 8:57:20 AM PST by fella (Political Correctness = Stuck On Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ProfSci

?


13 posted on 12/02/2005 9:02:04 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

What is truly amazing here is that this guy makes the case for ID!!

He claims that SETI is seeking narrow, organized signals, much in the same way we can discern if an object if fabricated by the unnatural appearance and shape.

Well, life is an organization of chemicals and elements that exist everywhere, but when assembled properly----life.

ID purports that such organization is evidence of design at work rather than random chance.

The radio signals sought by SETI are those organized and not those emanating from random chance.


14 posted on 12/02/2005 9:03:47 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer; wallcrawlr

Ping


15 posted on 12/02/2005 9:04:05 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my first full year on FR! Has it been one year already?? Has it only been one year??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProfSci
Sounds like this might be Cliff the Postman pretending to be an actual scientist.

Well, he is the senior astronomer at SETI, and his cv says his Ph.D is in astronomy from Caltech, so mabe we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

...a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

Uhhh, no, it wouldn't require that.

16 posted on 12/02/2005 9:06:15 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow (Sneering condescension.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

Our of curiousity, what is the "concrete evidence" that points to extraterrestrial intelligence?


17 posted on 12/02/2005 9:07:45 AM PST by sheltonmac (QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
Nature, for its part, seems unoffended.


18 posted on 12/02/2005 9:23:07 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProfSci
By the way SETI did have one important function. It has thoroughly debunked the concept of a big bang beginning by acknowledging that there are many blue shift situations whereas a big bang would require an expanding universe with only red shifts!

This, plus your claim to be An Actual Scientist, is making my B.S. meter twitch. Explain how the Big Bang cancels all proper motion, and renders orbital mechanics invalid.

19 posted on 12/02/2005 9:29:56 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
it is curious that seti is accepted in the scientific community and id is not

That's because "intelligent design" has absolutely no scientific basis but SETI does...as the article explains quite well.

20 posted on 12/02/2005 9:39:35 AM PST by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-214 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson