RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Evolution Question #2, SETI, do you hear what I hear?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
dougp59



Posts: 9
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2006,10:13   

From www.evolutionsucks.org

SETI, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.  

Astronomers and lay people alike are all involved in this search.  It involves linking up Internet connected computers to all pitch in to analyze radio telescope data.  

What are they looking for in the data?  An INFERENCE of intelligence, which would lead them to conclude an intelligence responsible for sending the obviously 'designed' message .
(Recall the movie “Contact” with Jodie Foster.)  

Question #2  If we are prepared to say that an inference of intelligence detected from far away originating radio waves must be proof of intelligent life (the designer of the radio signal), then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?  

Does this sound like a double standard?
Evolution Sucks

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2006,04:00   

SETI research proceeds as an ordinary design inference, not the rarefied design inference that ID advocates propose in their conjectures about biological systems.

Of course, the objection is just one of the ensemble of old, bogus antievolution arguments:

Claim CI190:
SETI researchers expect that they can recognize artificial signals, proving that there is an objective criterion for recognizing intelligent design.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 28 2006,09:10   

Quote (dougp59 @ Nov. 03 2006,10:13)
What are they looking for in the data?  An INFERENCE of intelligence, which would lead them to conclude an intelligence responsible for sending the obviously 'designed' message .
(Recall the movie “Contact” with Jodie Foster.)  

Question #2  If we are prepared to say that an inference of intelligence detected from far away originating radio waves must be proof of intelligent life (the designer of the radio signal), then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?  

Does this sound like a double standard?

According to the article SETI and Intelligent Design, the SETI project isn't searching for any messages:

Quote
In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We’re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens’ version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation—or message—that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.


So, the SETI project is not looking for any "obviously 'designed' message", just something that's not known to have been produced by a natural source (all known natural radio sources are broad-band) and which produces a Doppler effect.

That is, the search isn't directed towards search for intelligence directly, only for something that is not known to have been produced naturally, and which might originate from a planet. That's all.

Complex living systems have been encountered here on earth; they are even produced naturally. Ok, maybe some invisible hand might have a rôle in the production of an embryo, but as far as empirical science can tell, it's all natural.


- pwe

  
2ndclass



Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2007,18:47   

dougp59:  
Quote
What are they looking for in the data?  An INFERENCE of intelligence, which would lead them to conclude an intelligence responsible for sending the obviously 'designed' message .


So an INFERENCE of intelligence would lead them to infer intelligence.  Can't argue with that.  Whenever I infer X, my very next step is always to infer X.  Of course, that puts me in an endless loop of inference until I hit Ctrl-C.

dougp59:  
Quote
then why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?


Who said it isn't?  If you legitimately infer intelligent design in complex living systems, then by golly, those systems were intelligently designed.  As an added bonus, you'll be famous.

--------------
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  
corynski



Posts: 1
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2007,10:16   

Greetings

I noticed dougp59 wrote:    
Quote
why is an inference of intelligence in complex living systems here on earth not proof of an intelligent designer of that complex system?


An inference can never be a proof, or it wouldn't be an inference then, would it?  

The scientific method is not so much concerned with 'proof' as it is in accumulating evidence, such as inferences, for hypotheses which will become theories, which may eventually become 'laws', always with the understanding that new theories, new evidence, etc. can change the 'laws'.

KBC1963 has been beating this topic to death over here:  
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=423&start=0
but he's not making any headway.  

I suggested that to say that an ID created everything simply because everything looks like design or intelligence was just another case of Dr. Paley and the watch.  It's called the Argument from Design, or the Argument from Incredulity. Yes, we may infer that intelligence or ID could be the cause of it all, but the lack of any futher real evidence is a stumbling block, to be sure.....

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2007,07:20   

How common to take something out of context. Granted the equation designates "intelligence" but not deital. In fact from the equation (Drake's that is) it is easy to see that "intelligence" is a reference to any beings like us. Though after reading some ID stuff, I question human intelligence.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2007,22:48   

with Seti and every other subject that deals with finding "design", we are able to pinpoint a location of the source of design.  With Seti we would be able to name a star system and a time frame of when the intelligent message was sent, and while we may not be capable of finding out who sent it, it's still a physical possibility that we could.
 
In every single field that deals with design, we can also find the when, where, how, and even the who.  ID is the only field that has no method whatsoever of finding the when, where, how and even the who of what they considered to be an intelligenct cause.  This is what happens when you propose supernatural explanations that lead absolutely no where.  ID can't be compared to SETI because of this.

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2007,13:05   

Re "even the who"

Or at least the species to which the who belongs.

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2007,13:15   

Quote (Fross @ May 11 2007,22:48)
with Seti and every other subject that deals with finding "design"

A correction here:  SETI does not look for "design".  SETI simply looks for a narrow-bandwidth radio signal, something that is not know to occur naturally and therefore could be an indicator of an extraterrestrial intelligence.

SETI doesn't look at, and isn't remotely interested in, the CONTENT of the signals it searches.


So why do the IDers continually point to SETI as a "search for design"?  Well, because IDers are dishonest deceptive liars.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Not A Monkey



Posts: 24
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2007,08:01   

I must say I am in COMPLETE agreement with Lenny Flank.  ID'ers are once again grasping at straws, and misleading Christians.  They are seriously deluded.  There is only a single conclusion that can be reached, that is, they are pursuing a political agenda and have no regard for the truth, which is that there is no "Intelligent Design" since it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

Leviticus 12:5-7
"If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl."

  
  9 replies since Nov. 03 2006,10:13 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]