Originally Posted by philadiddle 
Finding a signal that appears to have information in it or seems to have a pattern isn't conclusive proof that there is an intelligent source behind the signal. For example, when we first analysed signals from pulsars there were patterns of design because of it's consistent pulsing signal. It turned out to be a naturally forming signal that exhibited signs of design.
It depends on the signal. There are signals that would clearly be evidence of a very high probability that intelligent life was the origin. Pulsars are a trivial example and uninteresting The signal was odd but carried no information. The complexity was non-existent.
SETI uses a practical approach to analysing signals. Instead of just making the ad-hoc conclusion that the signal is from an intelligent source, it is required that further investigation is to be done. ID jumps to it's conclusion though. From observing the patterns of design in the universe I could also conclude that nature is able to produce patterns of design.
These are big statements. Please back up your claims and explain how they differ (SETI and ID)?
And how can ID, as promoted by the discovery institute, be applied to these fields? What information has ID added to our scientific body of knowledge? What predictions has it made in these fields?
I'll answer these questions for ID if you answer the same
exact set of questions for the Cambrian Explosion. To be honest, I don't think you understand even why you are asking them.
It is not as clear as you think it is. And don't assume that I think that because I'm ignorant of ID. It may be that the ID advocates are wrong to think it's science.
How can you even discuss the issue then?
Linear Mode
