[The_Reader_David]

Sure they know what they are looking for: signals that show evidence of being intelligently designed. (Don't tell the evolutionary biologists.)

(Incidentally before the defenders of neo-Darwinism jump on this: ID as proposed is not a scientific theory, as the attempts to make it falsifiable are based on a priori probability estimates that are neither falsifiable nor verifiable. I just have an objection, on behalf of archaeologists and SETI to the notion that intelligent causation cannot be regarded as a cause in a scientific theory.)

[LiteKeeper]

ID as proposed is not a scientific theory, as the attempts to make it falsifiable are based on a priori probability estimates that are neither falsifiable nor verifiable.

I am curious. What happens to Darwinism and evolution when the same criteria is applied to them?