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".
- 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
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.
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?
IDers merely make their claims without ever receiving the complex signal.