Doesn't SETI qualify as ID research?

[FiverBeyond]

Hey there, folks,

The title is just a hook: I firmly feel that Intelligent Design is non-science (heck, even anti-science) and have especially laughed at their attempts to compare it to archeology or forensics. ID cannot be compared to these fields for vital, obvious reasons.

However, I admit that it's a little trickier for me to explain why a hypothetical signal from the stars doesn't prove the ID point. I love the idea of one day finding a string of prime numbers being beep from a nearby star system, and at face value I agree that the only known fact about the signal would be that whoever sent it was 'intelligent'. I might also blurp out many ID-sounding catchphrases... "Since there's no known natural cause of prime numbers, we can affirm that they are of intelligent origin, etc".

I've made one or two counter arguments that I think address this issue, but I want to know what you all think. Wouldn't an alien radio signal be a clear case of 'intelligent design'?

 

[nudger1964]

dont really understand your point.
A clock is a clear example of intelligent design...there is a big difference between that kind of ID, and one which invokes the supernatural

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm a tad bit confused as well.

I don't know that there is anybody who precludes the possibility of there being intelligent designers outside of humans, and it makes sense to look for them. The problem with intelligent design creationism is that it has no evidence, does no research, performs no experiments, and in short is not science.

 

[Prolescum]

 

[FiverBeyond]

I'm a tad bit confused as well.

I don't know that there is anybody who precludes the possibility of there being intelligent designers outside of humans, and it makes sense to look for them. The problem with intelligent design creationism is that it has no evidence, does no research, performs no experiments, and in short is not science.

My point is that, in the case of the signal from space, my usual arguments against intelligent design break down.

I.e, if you accept this argument:

1. "There's no known natural cause for this signal, therefore we can conclude that it is intelligently designed."

then why don't you accept the same argument for "information" in the human genome? Can't an ID advocate point to some poorly-studied gene, rightly claim that its origin is currently unknown, and conclude that it is intelligently designed?

In other words, what's the important difference between the 'signal from space' scenario and the genome scenario, such that intelligent design may be concluded in the one, but not the other?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I admit, it would seem highly probable that a signal containing a string of prime numbers would indicate an intelligent origin. However, to determine the true origin we would first need to eliminate some possibilities, such as interference from a terrestrial source. Second, to conclude that this signal is the handiwork of god or some other intelligent creator we would have to be absolutely certain that no natural phenomenon whatsoever is capable of producing such a signal.
Keep in mind that the first person to observe the effects of a pulsar remembered thinking that the emitted radiation must have been from an intelligent source.

I am aware that there is a significant difference between your hypothetical signal and a pulsar, but the fact remains they we just don't know enough about nature to conclude beyond a single doubt that the signal was of intelligent, extraterrestrial origin. The difference between ID and real science is that real science attempts to explore possibilities, it thinks outside of the box. Intelligent design is result of a person throwing his hands up in the air and proclaiming, "I don't understand it, must be god!"

 

[nudger1964]

urm, isnt an intelligent alien race a "natural" cause then?
i would think it was

 

[The Felonius Pope]

urm, isnt an intelligent alien race a "natural" cause then?
i would think it was

I apologize...I should have been more clear with my wording. I meant unintelligent phenomenon.

 

[nudger1964]

sorry that wasnt meant to be directed at your post FP.
fiverbeyond just seems to be conflating two different interpretations of what is meant by "natural", to me at least.
the signals we humans are sending out into space are not natural, but they have natural origins...ie, us.
the same would go for aliens. their technology is not natural, but it was made by them so it has natural origins.
if the ID crowd had provided any evidence that perhaps we were created in a test tube, and they really made no claims of a supernatural creator, then perhaps i could think, yeah, maybe aliens made us....but they havnt

 

[The Felonius Pope]

sorry that wasnt meant to be directed at your post FP.
fiverbeyond just seems to be conflating two different interpretations of what is meant by "natural", to me at least.
the signals we humans are sending out into space are not natural, but they have natural origins...ie, us.
the same would go for aliens. their technology is not natural, but it was made by them so it has natural origins.

Gotcha.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm a tad bit confused as well.

I don't know that there is anybody who precludes the possibility of there being intelligent designers outside of humans, and it makes sense to look for them. The problem with intelligent design creationism is that it has no evidence, does no research, performs no experiments, and in short is not science.

My point is that, in the case of the signal from space, my usual arguments against intelligent design break down.

I.e, if you accept this argument:

1. "There's no known natural cause for this signal, therefore we can conclude that it is intelligently designed."

then why don't you accept the same argument for "information" in the human genome?

Because there is a known natural cause for that: Reproduction with variation and environmental attrition. Also, you have to be careful when creationists start to talk about "information." They use this word but they typically can't define what they mean by it.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard some creationist say that it takes more "information" to make a bird then it does a dinosaur, but as AronRa hath stated, "if you ask them how much more they shut right up."

Can't an ID advocate point to some poorly-studied gene, rightly claim that its origin is currently unknown, and conclude that it is intelligently designed?

As far as I know there isn't any gene yet described that defies explanation via the normal routs (gene duplication, retro-viral insertion, and so on), do tell me if I'm wrong about that.

Also, that would by definition be an argument from ignorance. "We don't know, therefore we know."

In other words, what's the important difference between the 'signal from space' scenario and the genome scenario, such that intelligent design may be concluded in the one, but not the other?

Well the fact that we have a mechanism for changes in the genome is important. Similarly we know from our own experience how an alien civilization might construct a radio signal and what that would probably look like. This is a little bit shaky, as we only have a sample size of one to work with, but its something. And the idea is that if we found something resembling a signal, we could then begin to perform deconstruction on it; determine whether or not it might have a natural explanation, or if it shows clear signs of intelligent tampering. Critically we would not just assume that it counts as evidence for extra-terrestrial life without first trying to falsify that hypothesis. Right now we're in the stage of looking, there's no data to yet to deconstruct.

The ID people, on the other hand, already have the data, and they have a perfectly feasible natural explanation, but they're not satisfied with that. And that's fine, of course, they're free to pursue whatever line of inquiry they like; indeed I encourage this. The problem is they've constructed a hypothesis with no mechanism. Without a mechanism its not clear how you test the idea, or what would count as evidence for or against it, or if its even falsifiable.

Just to give an example if a species a little bit more advanced than us were to try and steer the evolution of another species in a given direction, they might do it by means of the retro-viral modification of gamete cells. If that is the mechanism, then you look for evidence of that. Specifically in humans you might look for retro-viral insertion points at or around the site of genes which modify skull capacity and brain growth. And maybe that's what you find, or maybe you don't, but either way the idea can be tested, and if this is what the ID people did, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

Instead there mechanism is indistinguishable from magic, their evidence is anything that might seem odd or unlikely, and their tests don't exist.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

The problem is they've constructed a hypothesis with no mechanism. Without a mechanism its not clear how you test the idea, or what would count as evidence for or against it, or if its even falsifiable.

Amen.

 

[FiverBeyond]

Because there is a known natural cause for that: Reproduction with variation and environmental attrition. Also, you have to be careful when creationists start to talk about "information." They use this word but they typically can't define what they mean by it.

I'm right behind you on this one, and it's probably my favorite area of the creationism/evolution debate (and yes, Creationists do not know what they mean when they say the word 'information'). But my point is that at a simple level, I can't square this with the comparison to a signal from space. At its face value, the creationists are right: receiving a signal from space would imply intelligent beings, and the only trait makes the signal remarkable is the information content. Right?

As far as I know there isn't any gene yet described that defies explanation via the normal routs (gene duplication, retro-viral insertion, and so on), do tell me if I'm wrong about that.

I'm not sure that holds up to the comparison: obviously we don't know the complete history of every gene, and the burden of proof wouldn't rest on IDers to prove that it couldn't have evolved. Compare to the signal from space again: suppose we get TV signals from a nearby star depicting clear sounds and images. Would we need to exhaustively prove that this couldn't have come about through non-intelligent means? Of course not.

Well the fact that we have a mechanism for changes in the genome is important. Similarly we know from our own experience how an alien civilization might construct a radio signal and what that would probably look like. This is a little bit shaky, as we only have a sample size of one to work with, but its something.

I think this is on the right track: when I think about the problem, I'd have to admit that if we received a signal from space, we could definitely form falsifiable hypothesis about the beings sending it and make predictions about what the rest of the signal will contain (ie, aliens, with physical bodies, broadcasting on a certain frequency, from a certain location, will necessarily have certain restrictions placed on them, simply by being physical). We could make testable predictions about the signal itself, unlike current IDers.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Because there is a known natural cause for that: Reproduction with variation and environmental attrition. Also, you have to be careful when creationists start to talk about "information." They use this word but they typically can't define what they mean by it.

I'm right behind you on this one, and it's probably my favorite area of the creationism/evolution debate (and yes, Creationists do not know what they mean when they say the word 'information'). But my point is that at a simple level, I can't square this with the comparison to a signal from space. At its face value, the creationists are right: receiving a signal from space would imply intelligent beings, and the only trait makes the signal remarkable is the information content. Right?

It would really depend on the signal. Again, we wouldn't just assume that it was from aliens just because we don't have another explanation handy. I can tell you without doubt that if SETI were to detect some anomalous signal we would see a legion of scientists descend upon them seeking to demonstrate its natural or man-made origin. It would only be if they could conceive of any credible means by which this signal could have been faked, or its natural origin explained that the scientific community would begin to give credence to the idea that it might have been intelligently generated.

Even that would be tentative, it would require further investigation (which, by the way, is something the ID people don't do.)

As far as I know there isn't any gene yet described that defies explanation via the normal routs (gene duplication, retro-viral insertion, and so on), do tell me if I'm wrong about that.

I'm not sure that holds up to the comparison: obviously we don't know the complete history of every gene, and the burden of proof wouldn't rest on IDers to prove that it couldn't have evolved. Compare to the signal from space again: suppose we get TV signals from a nearby star depicting clear sounds and images. Would we need to exhaustively prove that this couldn't have come about through non-intelligent means? Of course not.

Well hold on a second, because I think I may have found the problem here: Evidence is that which points to a single conclusion to the exception of all other possible conclusions. The existence of a gene which could have come about by natural processes cannot, by definition, count as evidence for intelligent design. For it to count as evidence for intelligent design the existence of said gene would have to support only that conclusion. So yes, if they want to use a gene as evidence for design, they do have to exhaustively demonstrate (I wouldn't say "prove") it could not have come about through non-intelligent means. Otherwise its evidence for both, which means its evidence for nothing.

Well the fact that we have a mechanism for changes in the genome is important. Similarly we know from our own experience how an alien civilization might construct a radio signal and what that would probably look like. This is a little bit shaky, as we only have a sample size of one to work with, but its something.

I think this is on the right track: when I think about the problem, I'd have to admit that if we received a signal from space, we could definitely form falsifiable hypothesis about the beings sending it and make predictions about what the rest of the signal will contain (ie, aliens, with physical bodies, broadcasting on a certain frequency, from a certain location, will necessarily have certain restrictions placed on them, simply by being physical). We could make testable predictions about the signal itself, unlike current IDers.

Agreed.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Just so say one more thing:

Suppose that evolution and human evolution in particular had been intelligently directed. This would have implications on what sort of mutations we would likely see, wouldn't it? I mean, if you're trying to create something like a human from something like a chimp you're obviously going to spend most of your time working on bipedalism, skull shape, linguistic capacity, and brain size. Accordingly you would expect that most of the genetic differences between humans and our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, would have to do with these modifications.

Instead we see that about half of the genetic variance between our two species just have to do with smell receptors. Chimps have a better sense of smell than we do. Was it really critical for the 'make human' project that the intelligent designer break our sense of smell? Is the inability to finely discriminate between subtle odors somehow essential to what it means to be human?


So its not just that the ID people don't have any evidence supporting their position, it's that a lot of what we know works against them.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

So its not just that the ID people don't have any evidence supporting their position, it's that a lot of what we know works against them.

I just want to build a few dozen pink unicorns, a few hundred dragons, possibly change the genetic code just enough to make it appear that bats more closely resemble birds than mammals.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I just want to build a few dozen pink unicorns, a few hundred dragons, possibly change the genetic code just enough to make it appear that bats more closely resemble birds than mammals.

Good luck with that.

 

[FiverBeyond]

So its not just that the ID people don't have any evidence supporting their position, it's that a lot of what we know works against them.

Not to derail the topic, but I can't help but feel that's a bad approach to take: you can't simultaneously argue that there is evidence against design AND argue that ID is unfalsifiable. It has to be one or the other.

Evidence is that which points to a single conclusion to the exception of all other possible conclusions. The existence of a gene which could have come about by natural processes cannot, by definition, count as evidence for intelligent design. For it to count as evidence for intelligent design the existence of said gene would have to support only that conclusion.

This is an example of a rare AronRa quote that I don't agree with (although I think it makes a little more sense in his original context). By this logic, you could never affirm that any fact counted as 'evidence', because it could be countered by the proposal that the fact was deliberately manufactured by a supernatural being. Since your 'evidence' does not exclusively support your position, it would be discounted.

That's a fallacy that I think IDers usually make against real science: it doesn't matter if the data is COMPATIBLE with your theory. What matters is if your theory IMPLIES the data. Every single observation is compatible with the idea of a supernatural intelligent designer, but the idea of a supernatural designer doesn't imply any data.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

So its not just that the ID people don't have any evidence supporting their position, it's that a lot of what we know works against them.

Not to derail the topic, but I can't help but feel that's a bad approach to take: you can't simultaneously argue that there is evidence against design AND argue that ID is unfalsifiable. It has to be one or the other.

Ah, this is very true and kudos for noticing that.

However you probably will notice that this doesn't actually falsify intelligent design, it just discredits it. The IDist could just argue that loss of smell somehow is an important part of being human, or that these mutations were not part of the designers design. It's not the total blow that bunnies in the Cambrian would be to Evolution, and indeed nothing could ever accomplish that sort of refutation because their mechanism is effectively supernatural.

Evidence is that which points to a single conclusion to the exception of all other possible conclusions. The existence of a gene which could have come about by natural processes cannot, by definition, count as evidence for intelligent design. For it to count as evidence for intelligent design the existence of said gene would have to support only that conclusion.

This is an example of a rare AronRa quote that I don't agree with (although I think it makes a little more sense in his original context). By this logic, you could never affirm that any fact counted as 'evidence', because it could be countered by the proposal that the fact was deliberately manufactured by a supernatural being. Since your 'evidence' does not exclusively support your position, it would be discounted.

If I correctly grasp your meaning... I'm fairly sure Occam's Razor neatly eviscerates this argument.

Thou shalt not needlessly multiply assumptions.

That's a fallacy that I think IDers usually make against real science: it doesn't matter if the data is COMPATIBLE with your theory. What matters is if your theory IMPLIES the data. Every single observation is compatible with the idea of a supernatural intelligent designer, but the idea of a supernatural designer doesn't imply any data.

Agreed.

 

[gallussapien]

This is whats so insidious about the ID tactics. Because it confuses what they are ACTUALLY arguing for (the 'knowledge' that god created man and the universe. (paraphrase of the Wedge)) and a concept that is a perfectly legitimate pursuit. Its totally legit to look for, for example, signs of intelligent intervention in certain aspects of biology, the possibility of contact with extra terrestrial life etc... The problem is that they are pretending to have actually FOUND it when they often know they havent and usually hafta know their arguments are fallacious, or even intentionally deceptive as is often the case.
All they have done is to jettison all the things that made creationism falsifiable and therefore accountable(while the adherants never really are) ; testable, and propped up an unfalsifiable non-mechanistic predictionless husk of, what I can only call an 'idea' if I'm in a generous mood. Then they pretend that not only is it not just an idea(barely qualifies as this), not just hypothesis(doesn't qualify as that), but a full blown theory! And the few scientists they actually have on their team can't possibly NOT know that they're lying.

I know this was 'to the choir' but I wanted to get that out.