Go back and read my last post. The motives and personal beliefs of scientists are unimportant to the product, as long as a rational methodology is employed.
I have nothing against SETI and nothing against the concept of ID. I do have something against ID advocates who ask for recognition before developing a rational research protocol.
The planetary probes are a separate issue from the radip astronomy search. I don't really understand biochemistry enough to comment on what is being done on planetary probes. I do follow them however, and I know that the results of the Viking probes are still not fully understood.
What this tells me is that you can't draw earth shaking conclusions from a single line of evidence. When you find something interesting you need to formulate hypoteheses about the cause, project expected data, and search for confirming or discomfirming evidence. If the hypothesis is out of the ordinary, it may take years or decades to build confidence in it.
I'd suggest, contriwise, that without overweaning personal beliefs and motives,--and THEORIES. There'd hardly be any progress at all in science. The universe has a relatively infinite supply of data impinging on us all the time, all of which could be explained in an infinite number of ways. If experimentation wasn't directed by theories, we ought just as well look at the infinite supply of data to be had for free, instead of paying mega- bucks to chivvy it out from obscure corners of the universe.
as long as a rational methodology is employed.
Like, say, methodically looking for examples of unobtainable complexity, or gaps in fossil records in natural phenomenon?
I have nothing against SETI and nothing against the concept of ID.
I do. Not because I think either is wrong, but because I think both are highly likely to produce no useful experimental results in any timeframe I care about, and wasting terribly finite scientific resources in a world full of scientific problems with more potential bang for the buck, that presently are underfunded.
I do have something against ID advocates who ask for recognition before developing a rational research protocol.
Behe and Dembski aren't engaged in rational research? Their results may be flawed, but does that make them irrational? Were the scientists who accepted phrenology, fixsd continents, and the ether irrational? Or were they doing the best they could with what they had to look at, and the intellectual tools they were aware of?
The planetary probes are a separate issue from the radip astronomy search. I don't really understand biochemistry enough to comment on what is being done on planetary probes. I do follow them however, and I know that the results of the Viking probes are still not fully understood.
eh...? Just off hand, this doesn't seem responsive to what I wrote.
What this tells me is that you can't draw earth shaking conclusions from a single line of evidence. When you find something interesting you need to formulate hypoteheses about the cause, project expected data, and search for confirming or discomfirming evidence. If the hypothesis is out of the ordinary, it may take years or decades to build confidence in it.
So the new thesis is that longevity and variety of research makes ID not-science and SETI science? Now you're sneaking up on my thesis as to why SETI is a science and ID ain't.