Straw man, anyone?.
Do you know Seth? If you do, tell him thanks for the great article :-)
The difference is that we can find concrete evidence through SETI, but not through ID.
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.
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?
"All your intelligent design are belong to me"
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.
Well, its because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that were 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.
That's because "intelligent design" has absolutely no scientific basis but SETI does...as the article explains quite well.
I gather that one argument for ID is that the odds of random events leading to the creation of life are so long as to be unsupportable. However, the odds of any series of events leading to any situation are equally long.
On the contrary, apparent complexity leads to the reasonable inference that a designer may be involved in its production.
And that, not complexity or a lack of complexity, is the core claim of ID -- that one can distinguish the natural from the artificial or intelligently made. If SETI claims that such a distinction can be made scientifically, then the idea that one could distinguish the natural from the artificial in biology is not unreasonable. Despite what this article claims, both SETI and ID are doing the same thing.
SETI assumes, without any existing evidence, that extraterrestrial intillgence may exist. In order to find evidence of such ET intelligence, they look for evidence of signals which have characteristics that would distinguish the artificial from the natural. ID assumes, without any existing evidence, that a creator of some sort may exist. In order to find evidence of such a creator, they look for evidence of pheonemna or features of life or the universe that would distinguish the created phoneomna from the natural. Both start with no evidence and propose finding the evidence by looking for created features among natural features. So without the whole complexity red herring, the difference is? Either you can differentiate the natural from the intelligently created or you can't. Either both are science or neither is.
But at least SETI pushes the technological envelope. Just looking out there we are bound to see something interesting, like pulsars.
Not curious at all. They are complete opposites.
SETI is an investigation that states quite explicitly that they do not know the outcome. SETI is an investigation.
By contrast, ID has zero scientific results, zero output, zero measureable scientific work product, but already has come to several very profound "conclusions".
10 years ago when ID was first proposed, we might have (IMHO generously) called it a working hypothesis. After 10 years and zero output, it can no longer be called even that.
Real science, like just about everything else, requires work. You have to produce something. ID has produced nothing.
This is why ID is essentially a liberal philosophy. At the core of conservative philosophy is hard work. Lower taxes are conservative because it allows hard work to be rewarded. Free market economics is supported because it allows hard work to be rewarded. Property rights are supported because it allows hard work to be rewarded. Etc. Etc.
Real science is hard work, just ask any of the practicing scientists on this forum.
And the work product of ID after 10 years: ZERO.
I think the mistake that opponents to a Creator make is failing to grasp the full scope of the arguments that demonstrate the foundation for belief in the Creator. It is more than the complexity of creation at a purely biological level. The argument for a creator falls into human pychology, philosophy, art, mathematics and more.
The mark of the Designer is in the design of the elementary particle physics that could be used to build a molecule like DNA. The fact that the elementary particles could even come together in such a way is support for a Designer.
Ever notice seti is like all the rest of the government hacks. Spend tons of money and produce nothing.