[js1138]

I suspect that SETI collects an enormous amount of raw data that can be mined, regardless of whether an "intelligent" signal is ever found.

[RadioAstronomer]

I suspect that SETI collects an enormous amount of raw data that can be mined, regardless of whether an "intelligent" signal is ever found.

Indeed. :-)

[webboy45]

My, my. Such a strong polarization of ideas. I really wonder why the scientist can't have an open mind and allow that ID is a possibility, and the creationist have an open mind and allow that evolution might be the creator's way of making this world. It's unfortunate that both sides use the wrong comparison, ie: intelligent design (ID) vs. evolution. It's apples to oranges.

ID relates to spontaneous evolution or random chance (RC), not to evolution itself. ID even allows evolution to possibly be the actual process of creation. If ID is compared to RC, as it properly should be, then we see that both concepts are simply statements of faith. Calling one more scientific than the other is absurd. Neither can be demonstrated in the context of the original creation, and neither is the obvious conclusion of scientific investigation or even scientific thought.

The RCist simply says, "I see no reason for a creator therefore there was none." The IDist says, "I've seen humans create new, more complex things from simpler components so there must have been intelligence guiding the creation of the complex forms that inhabit the Earth." Both concepts properly belong to philosophy, not science.

The President is right. If RC is going to taught in schools then ID should also be taught. If ID is banned then the competing philosophy of RC should also be banned.