Compare and Contrast ID and SETI

Well, a number of us have read something on the subject and I suggest that they do not have anything that stands up to scrutiny. All that anyone has presented here or referenced is junk calculations of probabilities.It may be relevant here but it will take us down a path that has been covered elsewhere and this thread will lose focus. I suggest, it you thing there the work has been done, that you go to one of the other ID threads and tell us about it. Perhaps there is something new.

(((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.

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.This means that SETI is aiming to identify an ID signal by differentiating it from existing and identifiable natural signals. The ID movement on the other hand is trying to identify an ID signal by differentiating it from... what?Perhaps you could explain to us what the very clear and specific criteria laid out very clearly are? At the very least a link to a website with a summary of the criteria.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Well thank you for manageing it. Now if you would enlighten us on what the assertions and evidences are that would also be polite. Oh, so we are to look for prime numbers in the DNA? The principle is no big deal. How it is enacted is. Care to give an example?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-04-2005 10:19 PM

Not as far as I can tell. It seems there are a lot of different ID ideas. Some seem to suggest that almost ALL life evolved through darwinian mechanisms with only a few places that don't seem to them to be possible. Others seem to just be talking about the first "life". Others just don't seem to be clear on which bits they do mean.I think a contrast between which are and are not intelligently designed would be helpful at this point. I'm sure CodeTrainer will enlighten us on this since he is the expert in ID and we are not.

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

Then you will be glad to enlighten him on what the criteria is then.What IS the critiera used to differentiate something that developed natually via something that was intelligently designed?