Only religion can explain.....
Study aims - if life was created, it may contain evidence of that creation in the form of features that could not have arisen via evolution or some other entirely natural process.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the difference here.
There is no experimentation here, no studies, no data. Every example can be explained with known physical processes.
Why? Evidence that life has or does exist on other planets? If you apply sufficient amounts of wishful thinking not much different than that seen in ID advocates when they look for evidence of creation in flagellum, blood clotting, or other complex biological processes. Of course it's also a very large skip and jump from life to intelligent life, but that's convenient to ignore. But if you can imagine life, why not imagine intelligent life, too, right?
That's why it is the "if" statement in the hypothesis. We have one example of intelligent life - could there be another.
ID doesn't even have one example of data.
ID is looking for biological systems for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such systems would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of a creative intelligence. The difference?
As above, ID doesn't even have one data point. Every example ID attempts to use can be explained with known phenomena. ID doesn't even have the predictive ability outside of 'it's too complex to be natural' despite the overwhelming evidence of complex systems occurring naturally.
It would give evidence of a possible artificial source
Exactly, which is why other projects analyze those signals and attempt to verify. That's part of science.
just as a complex biological system that cannot be explained via evolutionary processes gives possible evidence of creation
Except that that data does not exist. 'It is complicated so it must have been created' has no ability to be supported by any experimental data. Again, ID is not science.
That ID advocates have so far failed to find the smoking gun that they are looking for is no more a sign of failure than SETI's failure to find electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation
Again, ID fails to have any method of regimented study. SETI at least has a well defined protocol for study and internal critique of results. ID jumps from one complex system to another, pointing at it and saying aha! you can't explain that! Oh you can? Darn. Well you can't explain that one! Oh, you can...um, how about this one?
No science again.
Because they assume complex biological structures are so likely to occur naturally that they must be popping up all over. Life must be out there. Intelligent life must be out there. Why?
Not must - might be. Reread, since life exists here, it might exist elsewhere. Like determining gravitational acceleration on Earth - since a bowling ball accelerates at g then another object might do the same. So experimenters drop a bunch of objects and measure. Simple science.
SETI has measured less than 1% of they visible sky - still alot of rocks to drop.
And SETI continues to not find the sorts of signals they are looking for. The Fermi Paradox suggests that they should stop trying to waste taxpayer money looking for something that likely isn't there.
SETI has found about 1400 possible signals meeting the criteria. Most still being analyzed and waiting for reproduction and verification.
Once again, there are no taxpayer dollars being spent. SETI is privately funded.
So does the "search for irreducable complexity". The requirements are that the components of the biological system offer benefit that would explain their selection prior to the completion of the entire system. A + B + C + D offers a biological advantage while any three, without the fourth, offer no biological advantage or possibly even a detriment
The problem is that the idea or tenet of irreducible complexity or A+B+C+D argument has consistently been proven wrong. Multiple times non-essential or non-advantageous processes have been shown to have merged to produce a new A+B+C+D process. Never has there been one positive evidence for ID. SETI at least has had possible positives and zero negatives.
When the central hypothesis has persistently been proven wrong, scientists formulate a new hypothesis. ID dogmatists do not.
SETI looks at intelligent life on Earth and says that we can't be alone - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT
You are inaccurate. There is no "can't be alone" but a hypothesis before the study was made. A hypothesis that changes with new discovery, like pulsars requiring a narrowing of signal requirements. Pulsars are noisy over broadband. The was no after the fact supposition.
And if you want to point to the false alarms in ID, I can point to false alarms in SETI.
And SETI uses the scientific process to analyze and critique it's own data through a regimented process. Again, ID does not.
What's driving both? The same thing -- gut feeling based on their assessment of the odds that they are right.
Again, absolutely incorrect. SETI is driven by the investigation through scientific method for knowledge and understanding. ID is an ideologically driven quest.
I think we've hit the point where we are just going to go round and round on this but I'll try one last time on this point and the point about having one example to work from.
The idea of irreducible complexity hasn't been proven wrong. Doing so would require proving the negative, that no biological system in nature can't be explained by natural processes. I was not aware that modern biological knowledge was so comprehensive that it could claim that. What's been proven wrong (or at least unpersuasive) are specific candidates of irredicible complexity, not the idea, itself, even if you want to consider it a fool's errand.
No, there hasn't been one candidate of irreducable complexity that's panned out to the satisfaction of evolutionary biologists. But there also hasn't been on candidate of signals from extra-terrestrial intelligence that's panned out, either, and there sure have been negatives. Need I remind you, again, that such signals as those produced by pulsars where originally thought by those hopeful to find signs of ET intelligence to be created signals because of their regularity. They didn't pan out. That's a negative, no matter how much it might pain you to admit it. Yes, SETI has refined their criteria from those experiences and yes SETI has more candidates, but those may turn out to be just like pulsars -- natural emissions that at first look appear to be artificfial. And as our understanding of biological systems increases, ID may find more candidates for irreducable complexity, as well, or may determine some other criteria by which naturally evolved life could be differentiated from created life. That you seem to ignore this process of error and refinement in SETI (as if the entire enterprise has forever been confined to a singular search for a specific type of narrow-band signal) yet consider it damning for ID seems inexplicable to me.
And, yes, we have a single example of intelligent life from which we might wonder if there are other examples. We also don't have a single observable example of many of the processes assumed by evolutionary science because the conditions under which they happened no longer exist, or so forth. That absence of examples lead others to wonder if there might be other explanations to fill in those gaps.
The absence of knowledge or data makes us wonder about what we don't know. You are satisfied that evolution is sufficient to explain the presence of life on Earth so you don't wonder if another process was involved. Other's are not so certain, for a variety of reasons both good and bad, and do wonder. So they look for evidence of those other processes. You might consider that foolish. People who don't wonder whether extra terrestrial intelligence exists think SETI is foolish. Those who believe in global warming wonder how to stop it. Those who don't believe in global warming think they are foolish. By all means criticize the ID advocate, the SETI advocate, or the global warming advocate when they say something stupid or incorrect but this whole obsession over what is or isn't Science® is a bit silly.