Posted on 04/18/2006 4:19:25 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The tweedy academics of America have joined my battle to stop a creationist takeover of outer space
For me, the battle over teaching creationism in US schools has become achingly personal. Groups seeking to oust the theory of evolution from biology class - or at least hint to students that Darwin's ideas are suspect - are invoking my research to support their crusade. I work with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Seti), an effort to find sentient beings in space by using massively large antennas to troll for alien radio signals. Any technologically adroit society will be capable of broadcasting to listeners light years away. If there's cosmic company in our galaxy, a radio antenna might just be the way to find it.
[snip]
Few scientists give a thumbs up to creationism or its subtler variant, intelligent design (ID). The basis of ID is that nature is too intricate to have been built bottom-up by natural processes - as British creationists will hear from John Mackay, a former science teacher from Australia who starts a tour of the UK next week. The meandering course of Darwinian evolution couldn't produce a microbe's flagellum, a DNA molecule, or a human eye, say ID's adherents. They proclaim the complexity of these constructions as proof of deliberate blueprinting by a creator, presumably from outside the universe itself.
It's here that they get personal. They say: "If you Seti researchers receive a complex radio signal from space, you'll claim it as proof of intelligent, alien life. Thus your methodology is completely analogous to ours - complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design." And Seti, they pointedly add, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance.
[massive snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at education.guardian.co.uk ...
My error.
I think I'll change my tag line to remember this.
After all, The intent is the same - an "earth shattering Kaboom".....
:-)
Not exactly - IDers merely pointed out that, if SETI does get a complex signal (which is what they hope for) they will automatically ascribe its existence to an intelligence because it would take an intelligent designer to formulate such a complex signal. In other words, the SETI folks snort at ID, but will use the same type guidelines.
So far, SETI is the one with totally negative results, so it would be a bit unseemly to ask for it to be taught in schools that they have discovered life. However, you can bet there is no ban of teaching students about SETI and what they are hoping to find and how they are going about it.......
Nope. SETI is actually looking for the simplest of signals; a very narrowband "tone".
--For me, the battle over teaching creationism in US schools has become achingly personal.
He needs a girlfriend.
And what if God is really an omnipotent alien being like Q from Star Trek?
Big BIG BIG difference between a scientologist and a SETI researcher. Scientology is a cult that basically wants to take your mind, money and soul, all built on a nonsensical science fiction writer's stupid fantasy. SETI is just a bunch of scientists who want to find life in outer space.
Though I don't think SETI has a chance in hell of finding a true signal in outer space, I don't knock them for trying.
He also needs to cut down on Star Trek. The two kinda go together.
- SETI is not an attempt to undermine and supplant a validated, accepted scientific theory
- Believers-in-ETI have not historically tried to violently suppress information that threatens their beliefs
- SETI operates within the accepted methodology of science rather than redefining scientific terms and methods
- The evidence sought by SETI (another difference right there...searching for evidence) is a phenomenon not yet observed to occur naturally. All of the phenomenon ID points to as evidence HAVE been observed to occur naturally, protestations-to-the-contrary notwithstanding
Yeah, you can pick up complex signals by the billions. We also call them white noise.
And unlike ID, SETI actually proposes a model of the "intelligent designer" i.e. their means of communicating is similar to our own (and not by mind-rays or some such).
No they won't. Scientists are generally more careful than that. They are quite aware of the fact that just because something is complex that it doesn't mean it has an 'intelligent' origin.
However, you can bet there is no ban of teaching students about SETI and what they are hoping to find and how they are going about it.......
Hey, I'm all for biology teachers being able to teach about ID. Then they would be free to talk about what a flawed premise for a scientific theory it really is. Assuming they understand their subject matter, most biology teachers would do this quite well - it's not hard for a trained professional to see the flaws in ID 'theory'.
SETI follows the scientific method, so it belongs in ______ class.
ID follows religious teachings, so it belongs in ______ .
Filling in the blanks is left as an exercise for the student.
If only it was singular...
It's here that they get personal. They say: "If you Seti researchers receive a complex radio signal from space, you'll claim it as proof of intelligent, alien life. Thus your methodology is completely analogous to ours - complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design." And Seti, they pointedly add, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance.
Harsh and offensive. In fact, we are not looking for complex signals, but simple ones (such as a pure radio tone).
To this (from your post):
IDers merely pointed out that, if SETI does get a complex signal (which is what they hope for) they will automatically ascribe its existence to an intelligence because it would take an intelligent designer to formulate such a complex signal.
Did you even bother to read the article?
EVERY piece? So why bother to debate if there is "no debate"?
But we all know the debate is still very much alive ... but that arrogance! I would be surprised if any of you were capable of learning anything.
This communications scholar is embarassed that he never thought of that before, and it took two "laymen" to do it!
Too late. He just got hitched...
...and yes, she is an alien...
I see your question to my post has been more than adequately answered. If ID advocates published a hypothesis setting out some testable attributes for the designer, and started doing research, we would have to look at it.
I notice they look to Shapiro as doing this, but his stuff looks to me like just another complex system we don't fully understand. Another IC doohickey. Shapiro is on record as not supporting ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.