randman writes:
SETI is definitely looking for a designed signal from an intelligent agent. It is interesting that the study of design is accepted, depending on who advocates it.
One big difference between SETI and ID is that SETI doesn't claim to have found intelligence already, whereas ID does but produces no convincing evidence.
If tomorrow SETI claims to have found signals from intelligent extraterrestrials and produces evidence of the same quality ID-ists usually come up with, then no serious scientist would believe them.
If SETI people were like ID-ists, then they would take a regular bleep from the cosmos as a sure sign of intelligence. They'd say: "this could only have been produced by aliens", or worse: "this could only have been produced by aliens with almond-shaped eyes, like this one here", holding up a stereotype alien picture. All the while they'd be completely ignoring the fact that astronomers have very good reasons to assume the existence of pulsars.
Fortunately, SETI people know how to conduct serious science and are aware of the standards that valid, convincing scientific evidence should live up to. That's why we don't hear these outrageous claims from them.
I have no qualms with SETI looking for signs of intelligence in the cosmos. Likewise, I have no qualms with ID looking for signs of intelligence in the designs of life. But I do have problems with the claims ID makes, and the evidence it produces.
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
™ Version 4.2