Skip to comments.SETI and Intelligent Design
Posted on 12/02/2005 8:35:59 AM PST by ckilmer
click here to read article
Although your bunk has been properly debunked by a number of others I just have to put my 2cents worth in, lest anyone think I've gone missing.
For any lurkers out there that do not understand what the point of this post is, here is my interpretation.
The universe developed from the big bang which was not, contrary to what some believe, an explosion but a rapid expansion of space itself. It has been referred to as an inflation, where, much like dots on the surface of a balloon during the process of being inflated, the fabric of space is expanding, increasing the distance between cosmic objects.
If this all there was to the concept all we should see is a red shift in the hydrogen spectral line (a Doppler shift toward the red end of the spectrum) as all cosmic objects speed away from us. In this case a blue shift (a Doppler shift toward the blue end of the spectrum) would signify an object approaching us rather than receding from us.
It's obvious that the OP has forgotten that within expanding space, movement is possible and in fact all objects in space are doing just that, moving in observable and predicable patterns, including moving toward us more quickly than space itself is expanding. This gives us a blue shift.
"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.
Except ID starts from the false premise that only intelligence can produce what appears to be specified complexity, but SETI instead of relying on some shot in the dark premise of complexity, uses artificiality (in other words something we have yet to see nature produce).
Dr. Shostak was very clear that they are not using complexity as a measure of intelligence. They have no need to assign some outside intelligence to something that is obviously natural and follows the natural laws as we know them. We do not observe any natural process that could produce a cosmic symmetrical cube so we can safely infer if we observe such that it was produced by an intelligence. This is artificiality. In other words, artificial with respect to nature.
Only if you are willing to mentally squint really hard.
"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.
Nothing was said about 'organized', unless you consider a simple basic signal to be 'organized'. If this is your idea of organized it contradicts other IDist's concepts.
"Well, life is an organization of chemicals and elements that exist everywhere, but when assembled properly----life.
Said, well said!
"ID purports that such organization is evidence of design at work rather than random chance.
ID claims that 'specified' complexity is the basis of intelligence. Complexity as defined by Dembski is analogous to low probability but high compressibility, where Behe defines it as low compressibility.
"The radio signals sought by SETI are those organized and not those emanating from random chance.
Emanating from random chance? What exactly does that mean?
That would be news to Behe, Dembski and the rest of the Discovery Institute fellows.
About time you got up off your butt and did some real work. ;-)
This is in direct contradiction to the fellows at DI.
You IDists might want to get your story straight.
Not so much "lack of pattern" as occurence of all patterns with the proper frequency.
The book (and derivatively, the movie) "Contact" was a cheap ripoff of an earlier book (serialized in Analog?) called "The Siren Stars."
What evidence do you have that complexity, specified or not, is 'only' a product of intelligence? How is the difference between true specificity and pseudo specificity brought about by natural processes determined?
The most useful definition that I have run across is:
An inability to predict future outcomes based on previous results.
Not really. It's only 1 chance in 10**111 that the first digits of Pi are 3. 1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651. A sequence of 111 zeros would have the same probability (as would a sequence of 111 ones.)
Easily done. Just force them to grow within a box. They'll conform to the shape of the box as they grow.
Hardly. All it needs is a little help from the second law of thermodynamics and a bit of applied energy.
If he doesn't, the Moon may not have the correct phases next week.
As far as I know, SETI is privately funded.
Outcomes of indivudual events, of course. Averages of future outcomes (and variances, etc.) may be easily predicable. One cannot predict which radioactive atoms will decay, but one can predict how many will decay in a given time.
Likewise, an English actuary can predict how many people will die during the next year, but not which ones; that would take a Sicilian actuary.
Unfair. I clean toilets and he gets to play with the moon.
I hear that the Russian actuaries aim to displace the Sicilians in that field. (Sorry, that one sank as if it was wearing cement boots)
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.