By Seth Shostak
SETI Institute
posted: 01 December 2005
06:37 am ET
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.
SETI acknowledges the weakness of the Drake equation and doesn't use it as a basis. From SETI.org site:
When these various factors are multiplied together one can compute N, the number of transmitting civilizations. Unfortunately, many of the factors are poorly known, so estimates of N range from one (we are alone in the Galaxy) to thousands or even millions.
SETI starts with the premise that as technological life exists on one planet, it might exist on another. Therefor. signals from that other planet might be detected. (with stringent requirements BEFORE THE FACT as to those signals)
ID looks at certain complex structures and says that they must be designed - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT - and no ability to reproduce of verify results, indeed there are absolute no investigative results in ID.
Crucial differences - one is science, the other is not.
SETI doesn't really have a quantitative, testable method of separating the natural from the designed.
Yes, they do - as stated here and one their site.
What they don't have is a way of proving that narrow band signals are created and not natural if one applies the same sort of natural cause skepticism that ID critics apply to ID.
Again, yes, they do. Other projects are in place that take the signals and analyze them as to possible natural sources, reproducibility, and verification.
Another feature that ID lacks - again placing ID outside of science.
ID proposes that if we can find a complex system that can't be explained via gradual evolution because the component parts have no reason to evolve unless all of the components are present, we should consider that evidence of God.
And every time ID is proved wrong, they shift the paradigm or ignore the evidence instead of revising the hypothesis to fit the facts.
Yet another reason ID is not science.
"On April 8, 1960, he aimed a 26-meter radio telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank at two nearby stars. Sweeping his single-channel receiver up and down the microwave band, Drake spent several weeks listening for extraterrestrial signals. Known as Project Ozma, this was the first modern SETI search."
SETI - a 45 year (and counting) waste of money and energy.
No. Unfortunately.
Hypothesis - life exists on one planet thus it may exist on another.
Hypothesis - life exists on earth thus it may be created.
Support - An advanced technological life form exists on Earth, preliminary data requiring more research indicates the possibility that life has or does exist on other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn moons - Titan, Io, Europa, certain meteorites)
Support - An advanced technological life form exists on Earth, some elements that life may not be explainable using the existing naturalistic scientific explanation for the development of life.
Study aims - if life exists on another planet and has advanced to a broadcasting technology, it may broadcast signals in a type similar to Earth - powerful, narrow band transmissions that DO NOT exist in nature. Therefore, scanning frequencies may produce a record of such signals.
Study aims - if life was created, it may contain evidence of that creation in the form of features that could not have arisen via evolution or some other entirely natural process.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the difference here. Life exists here so it may also exist on other planets? Why? Evidence that life has or does exist on other planets? If you apply sufficient amounts of wishful thinking not much different than that seen in ID advocates when they look for evidence of creation in flagellum, blood clotting, or other complex biological processes. Of course it's also a very large skip and jump from life to intelligent life, but that's convenient to ignore. But if you can imagine life, why not imagine intelligent life, too, right?
As stated in the article and explicitly at the SETI site, the requirements for artificial signals are specific to narrow band, high energy signals that do not occur in nature.
See below.
It would give evidence to an artificial signal source. That would support the hypothesis.
It would give evidence of a possible artificial source, just as a complex biological system that cannot be explained via evolutionary processes gives possible evidence of creation. All it really proves is that they've found a particular type of signal that no known natural process can explain, just as ID advocates suggest that if they can find biological systems that no known natural process can explain, they've found evidence to support their hypothesis. The difference?
It's called science - you make a specific prediction and a use very specific conditions for experimentation and data. Otherwise, it becomes unsubstantiated anything goes wishful thinking - like ID.
ID is making a specific prediction. SETI is looking for electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such signals would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. ID is looking for biological systems for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such systems would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of a creative intelligence. The difference?
Wrong - as another poster stated, it's like painting a bullseye and firing a bullet at it (scientific research) and firing a bullet and then painting a bullseye around it.
Not at all. When ID picks a specific biological process as a candidate for irreducable complexity, it's the same as picking a particular type of electro-magnetic signal as evidence of an artificial transmission. When evolution finds an explanation for that biological system, it's the same as SETI advocates finding a signal that they think is artificial that turns out to have a natural explanation (e.g., the early detection of pulsars). That ID advocates are currently having no luck finding a specific biological system that evolutionist feel that they can't explain is no different from the deafening silence that SETI advocates hear in their search for narrow band transmissions. If a few failures is an indication of failure, then both should pack it up and give up.
It could, which is why there are other projects that take possible artificial signals and do further study. That;s another major difference between science and ID - critical study.
ID is inviting the same sort of critique. ID claims about flagellum and blood clotting have invited the evolutionists to propose natural explanations for those systems. That ID advocates have so far failed to find the smoking gun that they are looking for is no more a sign of failure than SETI's failure to find electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation. Both believe something is there yet have no proof of it.
Absolutely wrong - ID assumes that naturally occurring structures are too complex to be natural simply because they are complex.
You are confusing the reason for their skepticism and what they are looking for.
SETI at least compares known artificial signals to natural ones and makes distinction on verifiable and repeatable studies - ID can not claim that. If supporters do - they lie.
And why is SETI even searching for something they can't find in the first place? Because they assume complex biological structures are so likely to occur naturally that they must be popping up all over. Life must be out there. Intelligent life must be out there. Why? SETI and ID are two sides of the same coin which may, as far as we know, really be standing on it's end (life is entirely natural but intelligent life is so unlikely that it exists only on Earth).
No, because SETI uses scientific method. ID does not.
Things don't become true just because you say them often. SETI's search for a specific type of electro-magnetic emission uses the scientific method. ID's attempts to find biological systems that cannot be explained via natural selection uses the scientific method (such a search can be conducted via the scientific method, even if many ID advocates wander from the scientific method). The reason why both are looking for something for which no evidence currently exists is that they have a hunch or belief that it does. If that's not science, then it's not science for either one.
Every claim by ID can and has been explained by natural causes.
And SETI continues to not find the sorts of signals they are looking for. The Fermi Paradox suggests that they should stop trying to waste taxpayer money looking for something that likely isn't there.
ID supporters refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence provided by molecular biology, organic chemistry, and physics. Nature continually produces complex forms through the interaction of many natural laws.
That ID advocates include loons that don't understand biology and evolution is as relevant to whether ID is science or not as the loons who claim they were abducted by little green men are to whether SETI is science. Yes, nature continually produces all sorts of things but both SETI and ID claim that it's possible to distinguish the natural from the artificial. Either that's possible or it's not. If it's not possible, then they both need to give up. If it's possible for SETI, then it's possible for ID. That ID has failed to produce an example that has yet convinced the majority of biologists, chemists, and so on is significant, but no more significant than the fact that SETI has failed to turn up the sorts of signals that they are looking for.
Not if the "search for simplicity" has explicit requirements formulated before the experiment and before any conclusions are made.
So does the "search for irreducable complexity". The requirements are that the components of the biological system offer benefit that would explain their selection prior to the completion of the entire system. A + B + C + D offers a biological advantage while any three, without the fourth, offer no biological advantage or possibly even a detriment. Thus the natural processes and natural laws can't explain why it would have evolved naturally.
Yes, you can certainly point out that they haven't produced any such system for which many biologists, chemists, and so on are not satisfied that they can create a plausible natural explanation for. And I can point out that SETI hasn't produced any extra-terrestrial signals that we can't find a plausible natural explanation for. And let's not forget that there have been SETI false alarms in the past, just as there have been ID false alarms. If what either one was looking for was easy to find, they'd have either found it by now or given up.
ID fails utterly in that the conclusion is made first and the search is non-specific and changing - completely failing any objectivity or reproducibility.
SETI has also made several conclusions first. They've concluded, without evidence, that there is a good probability that ET intelligence exists. They've concluded, without exhaustive evidence, that narrow-band signals are artificial and not natural. And if they fail to find narrow band signals and adopt some other test to look for ET intelligence, would they invoke your wrath for being "non-specific and changing"?
What has SETI brought to the table that's objective or reproducable? The claim that narrow-band signals are artificial? That's an educated guess. In the past, they've suspected that pulsars and other signals were artificial, only to have them turn out to be natural. They certainly haven't found any more evidence that's passed scientific scrutiny than ID has. And that's not surprising, because both are looking for evidence of intelligence without knowing anything objective or solid about the intelligence they are looking for. Heck, the universe could be teeming with the equivalent of Niven's Kdatlyno, intelligent ETs blind to the EM spectrum, for whom the universe stops at the top of their atmosphere. Since SETI advocates know nothing about the ETs they are looking for, the could be barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Absolutely not - as stated in many posts and articles, SETI uses the scientific method. ID does not - it has nothing of science to it.
An assertion is not a proof, no matter how many times it's repeated.
It paints a bullseye around it's conclusion. It uses a fallacious method and a fallacious non-conclusion.
You are confusing ID, as the search for signs of intelligent design in biology, with ID advocates, as those who believe that such evidence is obvious. That is like confusing SETI, as the search for ET intelligence, with SETI advocates who believe in pyramids on Mars and aliens at Area 51. I'm not defending ID loons. What I am saying is that the idea that one can look for evidence that life was created within biological systems, regardless of how much of a fool's errand it is, is no less scientific than the idea that one can look for evidence that extra-terrestrial intelligent life forms exist by looking at EM emissions, no matter how much of a fool's errand that is. Both are ultimately a search for the unnatural among the natural.
Further, I find it no more harmful to tell public school students that some people look at life on earth and think it's unlikely that it evolved naturally without a creator than it is to tell public school students that some people look at life on earth and think it's so likely that it evolved naturally that they believe that the same thing has happened on other worlds and the universe may be full of intelligent life. Both are speculative opinions.
SETI acknowledges the weakness of the Drake equation and doesn't use it as a basis. From SETI.org site:
When they claim, "SETI starts with the premise that as technological life exists on one planet, it might exist on another," that's the same basic argument the Drake equation makes without the pseudo-math. The Drake equation was developed to put a number to the odds behind that "might". Of course the SETI sight just tosses another "might" onto the mix. There is one so there might be others. And those others might be detectable. Why bother looking? Because they think those mights are likely enough to find what they are looking for.
ID starts with the premise that intelligence can plan and create things. If such intelligence exists on a human scale, it might exist on a much higher scale that create humans. And we might be able to detect it in systems that are distinctly designed. It's the same two "mights".
ID looks at certain complex structures and says that they must be designed - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT - and no ability to reproduce of verify results, indeed there are absolute no investigative results in ID.
I can argue, in the same way (confusing the advocates with the science, the preconceptions of the believers with the agnostic way in which their search can be carried out as science), that SETI looks at intelligent life on Earth and says that we can't be alone - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT - and no ability to reproduce or verify results, indeed there are absolutley no investigative results in ID. And if you want to point to the false alarms in ID, I can point to false alarms in SETI.
Crucial differences - one is science, the other is not.
Constant repetition does not make something true.
Again, yes, they do. Other projects are in place that take the signals and analyze them as to possible natural sources, reproducibility, and verification.
Even if they analyze the signal and find no possible natural sources, that does not mean that no natural source exists. They can't prove the negative that science demands that they prove unless they know with certainly what did create the signal. Thus SETI could find a narrow band signal for which they have no natural explanation for but also no artificial explanation for. The skeptic would assume that a natural explanation exists while the optimist would assume that it was evidence of an ET intelligence. But the scientific demands placed on ID demand that science default to the skepticism and demand that SETI prove the negative -- that no natural source could possibly explain their transmission. Remember, given an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, and an infinite amount off time, you will get the works of Shakespeare without any intelligent planning behind them. Thus the plays of Shakespeare, alone, are not proof of Shakespeare.
Another feature that ID lacks - again placing ID outside of science.
ID made claims of irreducable complexity. Biology responded with explanations of how they could have evolved. That some ID advocates lack any interest in such science is as relevant to the scientific nature of ID (as a theory, not as a movement) as those who refuse to believe the natural explanations for the face and pyramids on Mars are to the SETI movement. Seperate ID from the ID advocates. There are plenty of loons among those who believe in ET intelligence, too.
And every time ID is proved wrong, they shift the paradigm or ignore the evidence instead of revising the hypothesis to fit the facts.
You are confusing the validity of a hypothesis with the failure of a test. There have been several cases where SETI advocates detected signals that they thought were artificial, only to be proved wrong. They shifted their test to something different and a certain proportion of loons wearing tinfoil hats continue to believe that the original evidence was really valid and the government is covering it up. That has no bearing on the validity of SETI or whether it's science or not.
ID is looking for a biological system that is not natural as evidence of intelligence in the design of life. SETI is looking for electro-magnetic signals that are not natural as evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Both have failed to produce any evidence, so far, that does not have a plausible natural explanation. Should SETI give up because it's come up cold every time? Should ID? What's driving both? The same thing -- gut feeling based on their assessment of the odds that they are right.
Yet another reason ID is not science.
Whatever.
Thanks. I find myself in the unusual position of being a science fiction fan who has concluded that FTL travel is unlikely, ET intelligence is very improbable (even if ET life is possible), and thinks we'll be lucky to get off the planet in large numbers, never mind out of the solar system. Even when I accept the possibility that intelligent life evolved naturally on Earth, my own version of the Drake Equation suggests that we shouldn't hold our breath finding intelligent life anywhere else, at least not intelligent in a way we'd recognize. In fact, I'm tempted to believe that if we do have a Creator, He doesn't want us to get off the planet. And given how our intelligence seems to work counter to the survival of our species (we actively work to thwart reproduction and many have come to the intellectual opinion that reproduction is unnecessary), I wonder that if we have evolved naturally, if intelligence isn't an evolutionary dead end.
Philosophically, I would disagree that the Lord wants to remain ambiguous. It is just that science isn't going to reveal the Creator's purpose. To be clear, the fool's errand is to try to use science when the search for the Creator's purpose involves intangibles such as faith.
I think it's possible to argue that faith exists in the realm of uncertainty. A God who presented us with a universe that is clearly natural is inviting us to believe that the universe is entirely natural and thus Godless. By creating uncertain evidence, God would ensure that certainty is always a matter of faith rather than science.
I'm not saying looking for meaning is a fool's errand, and I'm not saying that proving to one's self that the Creator exists is a fool's errand. It is just that science is the *wrong tool* for the job.
Well, if one is using "prove" in the scientific sense, then science is the tool to be used. And so long as science doesn't have all the answers, one is invited to look elsewhere for at least some of them.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I think you are making an interesting point that I essentially agree with. My point is simply that I think it could be possible that the purpose of uncertainty is to make faith important.
"Many solutions to the production of ATP (energy for the cell) have been tried and are tried by various organisms."
The connundrum is this: how was any living cell able to survive and reproduce before one of these processes became successful?
Joining the party way late. Looks like its been hashed to death already. Sigh.
Only religion can explain.....
Study aims - if life was created, it may contain evidence of that creation in the form of features that could not have arisen via evolution or some other entirely natural process.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the difference here.
There is no experimentation here, no studies, no data. Every example can be explained with known physical processes.
Why? Evidence that life has or does exist on other planets? If you apply sufficient amounts of wishful thinking not much different than that seen in ID advocates when they look for evidence of creation in flagellum, blood clotting, or other complex biological processes. Of course it's also a very large skip and jump from life to intelligent life, but that's convenient to ignore. But if you can imagine life, why not imagine intelligent life, too, right?
That's why it is the "if" statement in the hypothesis. We have one example of intelligent life - could there be another.
ID doesn't even have one example of data.
ID is looking for biological systems for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such systems would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of a creative intelligence. The difference?
As above, ID doesn't even have one data point. Every example ID attempts to use can be explained with known phenomena. ID doesn't even have the predictive ability outside of 'it's too complex to be natural' despite the overwhelming evidence of complex systems occurring naturally.
It would give evidence of a possible artificial source
Exactly, which is why other projects analyze those signals and attempt to verify. That's part of science.
just as a complex biological system that cannot be explained via evolutionary processes gives possible evidence of creation
Except that that data does not exist. 'It is complicated so it must have been created' has no ability to be supported by any experimental data. Again, ID is not science.
That ID advocates have so far failed to find the smoking gun that they are looking for is no more a sign of failure than SETI's failure to find electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation
Again, ID fails to have any method of regimented study. SETI at least has a well defined protocol for study and internal critique of results. ID jumps from one complex system to another, pointing at it and saying aha! you can't explain that! Oh you can? Darn. Well you can't explain that one! Oh, you can...um, how about this one?
No science again.
Because they assume complex biological structures are so likely to occur naturally that they must be popping up all over. Life must be out there. Intelligent life must be out there. Why?
Not must - might be. Reread, since life exists here, it might exist elsewhere. Like determining gravitational acceleration on Earth - since a bowling ball accelerates at g then another object might do the same. So experimenters drop a bunch of objects and measure. Simple science.
SETI has measured less than 1% of they visible sky - still alot of rocks to drop.
And SETI continues to not find the sorts of signals they are looking for. The Fermi Paradox suggests that they should stop trying to waste taxpayer money looking for something that likely isn't there.
SETI has found about 1400 possible signals meeting the criteria. Most still being analyzed and waiting for reproduction and verification.
Once again, there are no taxpayer dollars being spent. SETI is privately funded.
So does the "search for irreducable complexity". The requirements are that the components of the biological system offer benefit that would explain their selection prior to the completion of the entire system. A + B + C + D offers a biological advantage while any three, without the fourth, offer no biological advantage or possibly even a detriment
The problem is that the idea or tenet of irreducible complexity or A+B+C+D argument has consistently been proven wrong. Multiple times non-essential or non-advantageous processes have been shown to have merged to produce a new A+B+C+D process. Never has there been one positive evidence for ID. SETI at least has had possible positives and zero negatives.
When the central hypothesis has persistently been proven wrong, scientists formulate a new hypothesis. ID dogmatists do not.
SETI looks at intelligent life on Earth and says that we can't be alone - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT
You are inaccurate. There is no "can't be alone" but a hypothesis before the study was made. A hypothesis that changes with new discovery, like pulsars requiring a narrowing of signal requirements. Pulsars are noisy over broadband. The was no after the fact supposition.
And if you want to point to the false alarms in ID, I can point to false alarms in SETI.
And SETI uses the scientific process to analyze and critique it's own data through a regimented process. Again, ID does not.
What's driving both? The same thing -- gut feeling based on their assessment of the odds that they are right.
Again, absolutely incorrect. SETI is driven by the investigation through scientific method for knowledge and understanding. ID is an ideologically driven quest.
Not much of a conundrum. Many organisms use light, heat, anaerobic processes, etc. to produced and use energy through other processes.
ET Didit placemark
The essential governing forces are described by equations that include measured dimensionless constants that cannot deviate appreciably before the current universe becomes uninhabitable. Somehow, these constants appear to have been selected for fitness.
"...The strong nuclear force coupling constant holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.
If this force were slightly stronger, not only would hydrogen be rare in the universe, but the supply of the various life-essential elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from the fission of very heavy elements) would be insufficient. Either way, life would be impossible..."
Other examples of this type can be found here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml?main
I think we've hit the point where we are just going to go round and round on this but I'll try one last time on this point and the point about having one example to work from.
The idea of irreducible complexity hasn't been proven wrong. Doing so would require proving the negative, that no biological system in nature can't be explained by natural processes. I was not aware that modern biological knowledge was so comprehensive that it could claim that. What's been proven wrong (or at least unpersuasive) are specific candidates of irredicible complexity, not the idea, itself, even if you want to consider it a fool's errand.
No, there hasn't been one candidate of irreducable complexity that's panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionary biologists. But there also hasn't been on candidate of signals from extra-terrestrial intelligence that's panned out, either, and there sure have been negatives. Need I remind you, again, that such signals as those produced by pulsars where originally thought by those hopeful to find signs of ET intelligence to be created signals because of their regularity. They didn't pan out. That's a negative, no matter how much it might pain you to admit it. Yes, SETI has refined their criteria from those experiences and yes SETI has more candidates, but those may turn out to be just like pulsars -- natural emissions that at first look appear to be artificfial. And as our understanding of biological systems increases, ID may find more candidates for irreducable complexity, as well, or may determine some other criteria by which naturally evolved life could be differentiated from created life. That you seem to ignore this process of error and refinement in SETI (as if the entire enterprise has forever been confined to a singular search for a specific type of narrow-band signal) yet consider it damning for ID seems inexplicable to me.
And, yes, we have a single example of intelligent life from which we might wonder if there are other examples. We also don't have a single observable example of many of the processes assumed by evolutionary science because the conditions under which they happened no longer exist, or so forth. That absence of examples lead others to wonder if there might be other explanations to fill in those gaps.
The absence of knowledge or data makes us wonder about what we don't know. You are satisfied that evolution is sufficient to explain the presence of life on Earth so you don't wonder if another process was involved. Other's are not so certain, for a variety of reasons both good and bad, and do wonder. So they look for evidence of those other processes. You might consider that foolish. People who don't wonder whether extra terrestrial intelligence exists think SETI is foolish. Those who believe in global warming wonder how to stop it. Those who don't believe in global warming think they are foolish. By all means criticize the ID advocate, the SETI advocate, or the global warming advocate when they say something stupid or incorrect but this whole obsession over what is or isn't Science® is a bit silly.
Albert Einstein
The idea is to distinguish the natural from the created, the exact same objective SETI has when looking at electromagnetic signals.
I think now you want a reason why IC is nonsense. Just look at how IC is defined. - Which definition do you have? The IC definition is changing so quickly to adapt to the gaps each earlier definition left.
And if you look at the early stages of SETI, they were jumping on all sorts of things as signals from extra-terrestrial intelligences. Heck, the SETI scientists who fired off a message in 1974 failed to M13 will miss its intended target because the scientists didn't acount for the movement of the galaxy. Again, I repeat, that IC advocacy includes loons and mistakes has no more bearing on the scientific merit of IC than the loons and mistakes made by SETI advocates has on SETI. Or does real Science® demand 100% perfection these days?
Give me your explicit definition and I show you the nonsense.
A candidate for irreducable complexity will be a biological system made up of components produced by different genes that work together in such a way that the individual parts (and their hypothetical evolutionary precursors) either offer no advantage or a detriment to survival until the entire system is functioning in its entirety.
In simpler terms, find a biological system that can't be explained by natural selection.
No wonder by these definitions.
The early SETI advocates cast a very wide net that caught all sorts of natural phenomena, too. And let's not forget that popular advocacy for the possiblity extra-terrestrial intelligence includes people who hand out at Area 51, believe that little gray men abduct people with their flying saucers, and believe that there are faces and pyramids on Mars (belief in which is widespread enough to make it into mainstream movies). One of the games being played here is to widen the category ID advocacy to include as many loons as possible while narrowing SETI advocacy to a handful of respectable scientists using radio telescopes to look for a single type of evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence.
This is the same game that the mainstream media plays when they cover protest marches, taking effort to show liberal protesters as normal people (despite the fact that their protesters are full of freaks and loons) while showing conservative protesters as loons (despite the fact that most of their protesters are average people). Compare apples and apples, please.
Wrong! Your limitation to extraterrestrial signals is not valid.
And what limit is that?
How loud would the ID crowd cry out if some kind of IC found in bacterias but the scientist will say you still got no prove of IC in more complex organism. The boys and girls at SETI know very well how their "IC" signals look like.
So are you claiming that SETI has already found proof of extraterrestial intelligence? The SETI people know what humans might do if they were sending electromagnetic signals that might be detected by another species of intelligent life. But they really have no clue what any ET intelligent beings are up to because they've never seen one. They are guessing that aliens might solve problems the same way we would.
The concept of SETI is:
We got one example. Let's look for others.
OK.
The concept of IC is:
We got no example. Therefor our idea is still correct.
No. The concept for IC is, "We don't know if we have an example of a natural process or a created process. A lot of people think it's a natural process, but it might not be, so let's look for evidence that it's not.
Apples and oranges, but both are fruit.
A and BC may still be working and the others are just some corrupted copies. But A+, B+ and C+ will make together a profitable gene ABC+. So your definition of IC is a proper subset of evolutionary processes.
All of which may well be the case, once you understand how those six genes work and how they got there. That's why the questions raised by IC are useful to evolution. For every IC candidate that doesn't pan out, you've got a better understanding of an evolutionary process, correct? At the core, IC will go around identifying things that haven't been explained yet, inviting their explanation.
But to focus on your example, instead of begging the question and assuming that the six hypothetical genes have useful precursors in some combination, assume that once their interaction and development is fully understood, science can't figure out the precursors. Suppose there was no useful beneficial "A". Suppose any BC gene combination is always fatally detrimental without the specific mutation of "A" in combination with specific mutations of BC. Whether you believe we'll actually find such a combination or not is irrelevant. Such combinations can be imagined. What's the harm in searching for them?
Therefore we can reach an IC status with just using evolution. So your definition of IC is nice but can in no way lead to any detection of intelligence except you say evolution is intelligent.
What it will detect is "not naturally explainable". Things that are not natural tend to be artificial. Things that are artificial tend to be created. It's a leap, yes, but not an unreasonable one.
Well, as I have shown you your IC definition can be explained by natural selection.
With an example that doesn't allow for the possibility that IC is searching for. All you really said was that you don't believe that a gene combination that can't be explained by natural processes exists. I don't find them all that difficult to imagine, regardless of whether I think anybody will ever find a real example, because I know that all combinations of genes are not viable. Therefore, I don't find it all that difficult to imagine a non-viable path between two combinations of genes. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that I know for certain such a situation exists in nature. I'm simply saying that it could, and that's what ID is looking for with IC.
No, I claim we knew what characteristics we can expect from signals with frequency modulation (FM) or amplitude modulation (AM). The physical characteristics implied by these techniques are observable and therefore very likely intelligent.
Likely but not definitely. Unless they can decode clear message information from such a signal, they'll still have a mystery for which the believers can look to as proof and the skeptics can wave away as an unexplained natural phenomena.
I think this is quite a good guess because em-signals are the fastest we knew for communication.
I don't. Like I said, it's entirely possible that intelligent aliens develop on a planet with lots of interference, develop in the oceans of their world, are blind to the EM spectrum, and so forth. They might not be curious, might not be adventurous, and might not care what happens beyond their own world. For much of their existence on Earth so far, intelligent humans neither sent EM signals nor had the capacity to receive them. If a planet has a dwindling atmosphere like Mars, intelligent life could evolve and die out before they ever discovered how to use electricity. I think that real aliens, if they exist, will likely be so alien that we'll have difficulty finding a common frame of reference in which to communicate. We won't be finding Mr. Spock, ET, or Jar Jar out there.
So if they use em-signals the aliens will leave physical traces.
Suppose SETI searches 100% of the sky and finds no EM signals of the sort they are looking for. Then what? Do they give up or look for something different? Would anything have been proved either way?
The next step after detecting an ET-signal would be a call back. This step is impossible for IC.
I think many religious people would disagree with you on that point. For a religious person, the presence of God can be as real as those signals. If you are an atheist or agnostic, I don't expect you to get it. Just accept that ID advocates don't consider God hypothetical.
I suspect that if they found good IC candidates, they'd try to find "purpose" or "meaning" in those genes just as SETI would look for "purpose" or "meaning" in any signals that they detect. Assuming intelligence, that's the logical next step.
Maybe it would take a long time to get an answer.
There is no guarantee of any answer, even if there were aliens responsible, especially if the signal has travelled for tens of thousands of years and it takes tens of thousands of years for our signal to get back to them. If you don't get an answer, then what? Maybe they wren't looking. Maybe they've died off while the signals were travelling. Maybe it was just a natural signal that looked like a created signal. Suppose SETI get's a good candidate signal, sends a reply, waits the prerequisite number of years, and hears silence. Then what?
Some wise words from some wise scientists:
"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism."—Sir James Gray, chapter in Science Today (1961), p. 21 [professor of Zoology, Cambridge University].
"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene—its complexity—must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls." —*Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," in American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338.
"A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. Seen through a microscope there is an appearance of almost frantic activity. On a deeper level it is known that molecules are being synthesized at an enormous rate. Almost any enzyme catalyzes the synthesis of more than 100 other molecules per second. In ten minutes, a sizeable fraction of total mass of a metabolizing bacterial cell has been synthesized. The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."—*Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894.
"Each of those 100 trillion cells functions like a walled city. Power plants generate the cell's energy. Factories produce proteins, vital units of chemical commerce. Complex transportation systems guide specific chemicals from point to point within the cell and beyond. Sentries at the barricades control the export and import markets, and monitor the outside world for signs of danger. Disciplined biological armies stand ready to grapple with invaders. A centralized genetic government maintains order."—Peter Gwynne, *Sharon Begley, and *Mary Hager, "The Secrets of the Human Cell," in Newsweek, August 20, 1979, p. 48.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/08dna05.htm
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.