SETI and ID
The Oak Ridge Observatory telescope sits in Harvard, Mass scanning the skies as part of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project. In addition to the Oak Ridge Observatory telescope, the Allen Telescope Array is scheduled to begin operation later this year to continue an in-depth survey of the skies, listening for radio signals from a million different stars in a search that will take until at least 2025.
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is reportedly a legitimate scientific enterprise. It began in 1960 with Frank Drake, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, W. Va.
Carl Sagan said "It is difficult to think of another enterprise within our capability and at relatively modest cost which holds as much promise for the future of humanity".
The majority of the SETI work has involved listening for radio signals at the frequency of 1.420 gigahertz, which is the frequency emitted by hydrogen. Scientists are looking for some sort of basic mathematical information like a list of the first dozen or so prime numbers, repeated again and again. But almost any non-random pattern would be likely to catch our attention. The point is that if an intelligent agent wishes to communicate, it can use natural materials to convey a message and humans can discriminate these attempts from the natural processes. It would be like smoke signals or SOS calls.
The University of California at Berkeley runs the SERENDIP (Search for Extraterrestrial Radio Emissions from Nearby Developed Intelligent Populations) project, which piggybacks observations off of the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. Millions are spent on these “scientific projects” and about 5 million homes tap in as well to help analyze and sort through some of the raw data.
So the researchers involved in SETI use scientific equipment, collaborate with scientists, attend scientific conferences, publish scientific articles, and generally look and smell like scientists.
Here’s the question:
If these scientists ever do detect a signal, what will they conclude?
Their belief is that if they find a repeating code then they will conclude there really is an intelligent source creating it (extraterrestrial life).
This line of thought is absolutely no different from what Intelligent Design is doing. They are looking scientifically for evidence of complex design that could only come from a designer.
Why is one funded and taught as science and the other discredited?
Neither SETI nor ID will ever be able to prove their conclusions based on our current knowledge, but both are legitimate scientific endeavors.
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM
20 Comments:
There is a BIG difference.
The SETI group doesn't have a preconceived idea of who the maker of a signal might be. They just want to know if there is anyone out there broadcasting. Are we alone in this universe or not?
The "intelligent design" crowd, however, is made up primarily of fundamental Christians who are searching for specific evidence that supports their biblical version of creation. They aren't open to whatever turns up in research, but only to whatever fits in with the Earth and all the creatures on it (actually the entire universe) being created within the biblical time frame. That means ignoring most of what we know about mutations and the clear DNA evidence that modern species evolved from earlier ones. The vast (very vast) majority of non-fundamental Christian scientists don't consider that to be science at all.
There is a big difference between a predetermined conclusion and a working hypothesis.
Give SETI another 1,960 years and I'll get back to you.
Anonymous,
You are the one with preconcieved notion that evolution is without question and unwilling to accept new evidence or information that goes against your belief.
Your comments on DNA and mutations are grossly inaccurate, misstated, and do not correlate with what we currently understand.
ID science does not have a preconceived notion about the Biblical God.
The available evidence does point to a designer and against "chance" as the better explanation.
RE: "Your comments on DNA and mutations are grossly inaccurate, misstated, and do not correlate with what we currently understand."
Well, they might not correlagte to what YOU understand, but the very great majority of legitimate scientists would disagree with you.
And, let's be honest. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism in a white lab coat.
Anoymous,
How about you being honest.
Your response
"Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism in a white lab coat"
tells me that you really have little knowledge about what ID really involves or teaches.
Blogtastic says,
"When I checked into it several months ago, the majority of those wishing intelligent design to be taught in various classrooms around the country were not asking that it replace evolutionary teaching and hypotheses; rather, they were asking that it be taught "/* Darwinian theories."
Yes, you put this so well. This is a viable answer to moving this discussion forward in civility and good will.
Anonymous said,
"The "intelligent design" crowd, however, is made up primarily of fundamental Christians who are searching for specific evidence that supports their biblical version of creation. They aren't open to whatever turns up in research, but only to whatever fits in with the Earth and all the creatures on it...That means ignoring most of what we know about mutations and the clear DNA evidence that modern species evolved from earlier ones. The vast (very vast) majority of non-fundamental Christian scientists don't consider that to be science at all."
This is overwhelming, but I want to address a few claims that you make.
1. What I understand about mutations is that zero, nada, no evidence exists of mutations toward higher function. Can you point me to empirically confirming evidence of observed mutations that improve the species? (Fruit flies count, X-men do not count.)
2. Clear DNA evidence that modern species evolved from lower species? Clear as mud? Could you explain or point to this evidence? I am unfamiliar with it. I have understood that that statistically human DNA is closer to that of pigs than that of monkeys, although close to both.
3. Science is limited to the natural world. The Bible contains supernatural claims. Therefore, it is illogical for any Christian, fundamental or non-fundamental, to consider creation as science, yet both could consider creation as TRUTH. Rightfully creation is supernatural by its very nature. Creation ex nihilo is very different than the study of actual and proposed processes like micro-evolutionary science and macro-evolutionary THEORY.
4. I agree with your statement that there is a big difference to predetermined conclusion and working hypothesis. The ID crowd would complain that the status quo is that evolution is both a predetermined conclusion and working hypothesis when it is taught EXCLUSIVELY in science curriculum, and when naturalistic scientific methodology creates a materialistic bias--an anti-supernatural bias.
When one has a materialistic bias, they will base what exists on what they know. They will not base what they know on what actually exists.
This is a problem.
ID science does not support Christianity exclusively. It does mutually support religions who acknowledge evidence and teach the existence of an intelligent force from a supernatural realm.
This is common ground for Jews, Christians and Muslims, yet the nature of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim God/Allah taught in the Bible/Koran varies. Also the nature of man's free-will that is taught by the Judeo-Christian and Muslim teachings vary.
The options are...
A. Both teachings can't be right.
B. Both teachings could be wrong.
C. One teaching could be right.
Because our science-minded culture has come to rely so heavily, even exclusively, on empirical science for trustworthy truth claims, we are handicapped in having rational linear discourse about these sorts of claims.
mdp says,
"The SETI thing is a ridiculous idea anyway. Did we at any point in our history use Hydrogen to transmit a list of prime numbers into space incase someone was looking for us."
Thanks mdp this is a new and well made point. Do you mind if I add it my list of reasons SETI is illogical?
Lots of Intelligent Design babble. I will save myself some typing and just ask unbiased readers to take a look at this website:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
Well, there was an item that spoked directly to your point. If you insist that "Only something (Someone) supernatural could have existed forever", then the next logical question is how did that being come into existence. The old "cause uncaused" routine collapses under its own illogic.
Anonymous says,
"...then the next logical question is how did that being come into existence. The old "cause uncaused" routine collapses under its own illogic."
Supernatural-ness so to say, is not limited or beyond the limits of our four dimensions.(l x w x h and time)
The question is a categorical fallacy. The question of "Who made God" just perpetuates the problem of infinite regress.
But, for some who deny more than one category, thus limiting themselves to the purely natural and explanations from natural cause only,
like those with materialistic bias, infinite regress may not be perceived as a non-answered problem.
RE: "The ONLY explanation of something that defies our rules of logic must be supernatural"
Why?
Why jump to the conclusion that the answer may be supernatural rather than something that is simply beyond our current ability to understand it? The weather, volcanic eruptions, crop failures and disease were all considered deliberate acts of gods before we understood some of the science behind those events. Assuming that God's hand is at work beyond the edges of what we know today has been a losing proposition for centuries.
RE: " no evidence exists of mutations toward higher function."
Evolutionary theory says organisms change based on mutations which provide survival advantages. I don't know if you call them "higher" functions or not, but how else would you explain that insects, viruses, etc. develop immunity to medicines and pesticides over time. A species which adapts in order to survive might be described as moving to a higher (or call it more successful) function.
anonymous,
Your last statement defines what everyone agrees on; Microevolion
The problem arises by trying to extrapolate the observations of change within a species to the radical leap of change of the species.
There is no observable evidence available for the conclusion of macroevolution. It also requires faith.
When considering the possibility of the general theory of evolution, there are two things that must be in place. There must have been abiogenesis; life must come from non-life, and it must do so without any help from an outside source. This the kick-off that gets us into the evolutionary game.
Once we have abiogenesis, we must then have change or transition from one kind of living thing to another, from simple to complex, thus accounting for the variety of life forms on earth. No mutations have ever been shown to add genetic material. Any observable changes occur because the genetic material is already present but suppressed because of environmental factors. They can appear and then disappear as the environment changes.
You cannot find a transitional form and there is a problem looking for this missing link because you must already be committed to the idea that a missing link exists (faith).
Your religion is evolution.
I have read that science teaching in American schools is in crises, but I had no idea things were so bad. Intelligent Design "cult-speak" is not science and you can dress it up all you want, but it is ridiculed by main-stream scientists.
The Well Hungarian says,
"I really appreciate your (Anonymous) input but unfortunately you are wasting your time arguing about religious subjects with Mr. and Mrs. HB. They use the old bait and switch on you. They open up the door for discussion and then slam it in your face with their militant use of words."
Militant? the old switch and bait? Slam the door? I read my comments that seem to focus logically and through reason, perhaps explaining the comments being received as without, "heart, emotions, sensitivity or openness. I care about other's emotions, but I will not disrespect others by holding or compromising available evidence that supports a view other than the one they hold--for their comfort needs.
My personal goal is to discuss the truth, but never to leave dead bodies behind or be "militant" as you have suggested.
I value the opinions expressed on the blog. I value contemplative individuals and those who put energy into discussions about important issues of the deep meanings of life.
Faith is faith. Reason is reason. You confuse the two a lot.
Blessed are they who have not seen, but yet believe...
That is the "Prayer of a commissioned salesperson."
Better still, I believe Tammy Faye's old wigs are still available.
Post a Comment
<< Home