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.
Nifty and humorous idea.
However if it were so liberal - why do so many of the 'Religious Right' fall over themselves to embrace it? Also going to the extreme of raping science textbooks and classrooms with the ID attack...
Possibly for the same reason many so-called conservatives promote economic intervention schemes.
There is a component of conservatism that believes in minimal government and one that favors the use of government to promote conservative values.
The dims are not the only political party with warring factions.
I am suggesting that while the organic compounds may have had to follow specific laws in order to form DNA/RNA, the events themselves during which those laws were followed with those results were random.
NEW SETI and Intelligent Design . SETI research offers no support for Intelligent Design.
But, but, but
"Complexity with order" occurs consistently in the natural world and not due to "random chance." Snow drifts and sand dunes form mathematically complex forms, weather is a wide ranging complex systems, molecular structures are ordered and complex. None of these form from random chance. When a protein forms, it follows very exact rules that govern the relationship of atoms, molecular orbital mechanics, etc. - primary, secondary, and tertiary structures follow precise mechanisms and form very complex, ordered structures.
No outside planned design but internal physical laws govern. Yet, ID states that it is soooo complex that it must be designed (no evidence whatsoever, no experimentation, nothing to support it) because it is sooo complex.
You mean simplicity and efficiency like that found in our own DNA?
DNA is far from simple - and is used as a complexity argument for ID - it is a huge conglomeration of physical interactions producing a complex order.
DNA is also far from efficient. It consists of mostly wasted space. Introns, 'dead' spots, repetitive stop and start codons (some stop codons don't even stop anything - it's like part of the programming was damaged but never thrown away)fill DNA. Every transcription has errors - so much so that a separate mechanism for fixing errors exists (like producing Yugos that have to go to the Goodwrench repair shop before they can be sold) and multiple errors occur in replication.
Any worthwhile engineer could design a better system.
SETI is looking for narrow, high energy signals without cross-frequency turbulence. No known natural source produces this.
At least we agree that it isn't a theory, but I also wouldn't call that a hypothesis, more like a speculation. If it were a hypothesis, you'd be able to at see, at least vaguely, some way toward falsification.
I remember seeing a man's head and it looked like a potato that I'd seen.
The man's head was incredibly complex. The potato was also undeniably complex. The complexity of the head and that of the potato combined to make me wonder at the order of complexity that exists in this world.
Both proved to me that something bigger than random atomic dodgeball was going on.
You really need to stop playing with Mr. Potato Head.
If he was a real scientist he wouldn't say "a real scientist." His tagline might read "a real physicist" or "a real chemist." The only folks who I've ever encountered using the generic "scientist" to describe themselves have been diploma mill scientist wannabes and actors in television comedy skits.
Well, if you consider the large amounts of the various elements in a high energy environment such as when the Earth was forming, great number of organic compounds would form with increasing complexity.
Dr. Stanley L. Miller performed a classic series of experiments using water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia (present in Earth's early atmosphere) in which an electric current was introduced briefly (such as from lightning in early Earth) and he collected the resulting compounds. He found amino acids, building blocks of proteins and DNA, among the compounds.
If it can be reproduced, it becomes difficult to fit into my definition of random.
A falsification?
We might be talking semantics. To me "random" is anything that is unplanned. So my usage of the word "random" could include events that are extremely specific and which follow strict guidelines and physical laws, as long as they happen without purposeful planning and direction.
Just because an event happened randomly doesn't mean it couldn't be reproduced arbitrarily later? Or that it would result in specific consequences, some of which would be predictable.
I see that this line of thought leads to an entirely different philosophical can of worms than the one under discussion, if taken much further.
If SETI ever gets a supposed artificial signal, they will being making the same assumed assertions. Just like the evolutionists have been doing for years.
SETI = waste of money.
I agree.
I see that this line of thought leads to an entirely different philosophical can of worms than the one under discussion, if taken much further.
Very true - that could overwhelm its own thread. :-)
"Random" and "un-planned" are two different concepts. An avalanche may be unplanned, but it is definitely not random -- the debris heads in pretty much the same direction. Throwing a die generates a random number, but the act of throwing it makes it "planned."
Ah yes, all those assumptions that have been supported by over 100 years of observation and experimentation. It sure beats the hand waving and over-pious gesticulating from 'those anti-science, anti-education and knowledge' people. SETI = waste of money.
SETI is privately funded. I guess people can "waste" their money on anything they choose....even if it does further that nasty science thing that scares zealots.
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.