[asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

This posting shows how ID has confused the issue.

Information rich is identical to eliminating known natural causes.
Alien intelligence however is still a natural cause.
And finally, SETI is using for simple signals, not complex signals,
despite the consistent confusion by ID proponents.
Why is ID not science ? SImple, it is based on an eliminative
argument, and conflates common terminology to lead its followers to
conclusions that do not follow from the premise. The abuse of
terminology like information, complexity has done a lot of disservice
to science and religious faith.

So to ask you a question: What has ID done with regard to DNA and
biological structures? Anything worth reporting on from a scientific
perspective? I'd say, nothing, nothing at all. In the mean time
scientists have shown how simple processes of variation and selection
can trivially explain the increase in information and complexity.

What if one eliminates all known natural causes, then what remains is
our ignorance. What makes you think that the set theoretic complement
of reguarity and chance should be called intelligence?

On 9/12/07, rpaulmason@juno.com <rpaulmason@juno.com> wrote:
> What if one eliminates all known natural causes for a highly organized and information rich phenomenon - nonrandom and nonrepetative complexity. Is it OK intelligence if the intelligence is an alien race? We are looking for complex nonrandom signal in out space as evidence of intelligence beyond earth: SETI. Is SETI science? If ID is doing the same thing with regard to DNA and biologic structures, why is that not science?
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 12 22:25:26 2007