Compare and Contrast ID and SETI

The SETI project shows that the idea of analyzing data from the natural medium of astronomical microwave or radio receptions here on Earth for an intelligently designed pattern, is generally considered a legitimate scientific endeavor.The scientific component of Intelligent Design ideas parts from the same principle, that of analysis of data extrapolated from naturally occurring media --in this case, one might say natural systems-- in which the media is DNA and other biochemical systems.I would like to see discussion on the topic.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-03-2005 01:12 AM

NosyNed wrote: At this point those familiar with biology and evolution will recognize the contrast with ID.==> Anyone familiar with it will recognize the differences in terms of the medium and in terms of the kind of patterns searched.The principle that one can find patterns or structures in data that describe attributes in natural media is recognized in both.

First off, it bears repeating that whatever differences there may be between SETI and ID, the principle remains.(((Mick: 1. Mathematical models of what kinds of signal are NOT intelligently designed.. ___ID, on the other hand, has no clear model of what biological "noise" looks like, so ID researchers are unable to falsify a claim that a signal is intelligent.)))This shows a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding of ID. There have been very clear and specific criteria laid out very clearly.(((2. Mathematical models of what kind of signal IS intelligently designed ___ID researchers, on the other hand, do not have a model of what intelligent design in the biological world would look like. )))Of course they do. I suggest you study up on the subject.(((3.3. An empirical research program based on falsification ___ID researchers, on the other hand, are not engaged in gathering empirical data from the world which can be used to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent agency.)))==> The data they use is well known. If you learn what the assertions are, you can attempt to falsify them. In general, those who could have tried, have instead avoided trying, using the ruse of rejecting the idea based on either the implications, or based on some theological point.

(((NosyNed said: "But the differences are there too. The ID folk seem to accept any pattern as meaningful or at least have no way of distinguishing which are and are not." )))==> It is difficult to use polite language to answer this, as it shows that one has no idea what the assertions have been for ID, and what evidence has been provided for it, or what distinguishes what has been provided for evidence or not.==> And the principle of detecting an intelligently designed pattern in the configuration of attributes in natural media remains the same.

Mangy Tiger wrote: "___Is it not generally claimed/assumed by proponents of ID that all life on Earth is Intelligently Designed? If this is the case then how can there be any such thing as biological "noise" - by definition it can't exist.___"You post this comment and then claim that you do not know what criteria are used. This shows a prejudging attitude on the subject without any idea of the supposed criteria.On the other hand, if you are simply covering up the fact that you do indeed have a good idea what it is, in spite of these generalized objections that avoid the assertions laid out by its proponents, then state your objections. You can't have it both ways.- Alan