Interesting statements. Let's discuss them, please:
Detecting, deciphering, whatever you wish to call it, Intelligent Design would be, in fact, purposeless unless we could act on that knowledge. Would you not agree? Other than saying "God did this", there is nothing else to be learned, correct? Unless you are suggesting that man, once we have detected God's design in a cell, can now copy, modify, and even improve upon God's work? If you are not saying that, then WHAT is the point or purpose of detecting design - specifically design of divine origin? I can think of none. Help me out here.
Let's move to your second statement, which appears at a glance to equate SETI's mission with ID's intent. Or is it? Is SETI there to detect and measure God's cosmic messages? Could mankind do anything with such data? We both know the answer to those questions: no. However, SETI's true missions fouses on alien (non-divine) communications. Could mankind do something with that data? I believe most of our best and birghtest think so.
What I am trying to focus on here is what can be done with the data. Please tell me what can be done with data collected from a divine source, because I can think of nothing.
Doggone interesting post. I had never even considered that angle before. Thanks for bringing it up!
So you believe that only “applied” science is worth pursuing, and “pure” science is worthless? I’ll bet many scientists would be very disappointed about that. And I’ll bet that not many cosmologists have thought of a practical application of their work!
[[ If you are not saying that, then WHAT is the point or purpose of detecting design - specifically design of divine origin? I can think of none. Help me out here.]]
None? What can be done with the knoweleldge of intelligent design? Plenty- Because If nothign has common descent, as has been proposed for 150 years now, then medicine will take a totally different path, as well as our understanding of the elements that make up design- When science gets out of hte broken dead end rut of searchign for common links, the path of discovery will venture in the much more realistic line of design instead. If two elements of a system are sdpecifically designed, then that would lead a person to reason that all other elements will be conjoined by their own design features instead of some random mythical mutational line. The possibilities of discovery with design are endless.