This is quite funny.
Somehow SETI wants us to believe that searching for signs of intelligence in outer space is science, but that searching for it in the building blocks of living organisms is not.
Sorry, SETI...
The belief in extraterrestrials, and the need to find their existance is no more scientific than the belief/need with regards to intelligent design.
To be perfectly fair, SETI gets roundly flamed in the scientific community for making the same kind of stupid assumptions that ID makes in the face of damning theoretical arguments to the contrary. Mathematics does not support the possibility of fulfilling SETIs nominal mission.
But like with ID, the motivation behind SETI is more religious and ideological than scientific and so the underlying validity of the argument makes no difference to its supporters. Unfortunately, SETI attracts a lot geeky people, which lends a patina of scientific credibility where little should exist. At least ID is mostly the bastion of religious flakes, which significantly damages its credibility ipso facto.
As you imply, the theoretical argument against both is the same, and mathematics does not support a necessary underlying assumption in the general theory.
No.
Somehow SETI wants us to believe that searching for signs of intelligence in outer space is science, but that searching for it in the building blocks of living organisms is not.
Not sure where you are driving with this but as stated, both are science.
The belief in extraterrestrials,
I do SETI and I do not "believe" in extraterrestrials.
and the need to find their existance is no more scientific than the belief/need with regards to intelligent design.
Flapdoodle.
From my point of view, Dawkins' notion that genes are involed in a natural selection process is not much different from "vitalism." Just Greek essentialism imposed on vital atoms.