[Dimensio]

I'm confused. You seem to be asserting that it's impossible to prove that no natural phenomenon could produce something that looks like a specific form of information. I'll buy that, but that wasn't what I was asking for -- I'm wondering what could be observed that would completely discount the possibility of an "intelligent" source. Some kind of "signal" that could not possibly have originated from an intelligence.

Nothing in science can be "proven", but there always must be a hypothetical means of falsifying a hypothesis.

[ArGee]

I'm wondering what could be observed that would completely discount the possibility of an "intelligent" source. Some kind of "signal" that could not possibly have originated from an intelligence.

You're right about that. Even if we found a little bacterium somewhere busily chunking away and producing the works of Shakespeare we can't discount the possiblity that a human actually wrote the originals. If your point is that the scientific method can not prove the requirement for a designer I would agree. My point is that the scientific method is then required to demonstrate a non-deterministic source for the information. Otherwise the source can be posited, but it can not be assumed.

Shalom.