SETI and Intelligent Design
by MikeGeneThe people at SETI have several useful lessons to teach when it come to detecting non-human design.
1. SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. SETI thus searches for non-human intelligence without first rigorously and precisely defining 'intelligence.'
2. In order to detect design, SETI does not first come up with any independent evidence that aliens would or could send us such a signal. Neither must the SETI researchers first see aliens in the act of sending messages before they infer design.
3. While in the process of detecting design, SETI does not consider it important to explain the origin of the designers.
4. What if SETI discovers a persistent, narrow-band whistle in some region of the electromagnetic spectrum? Does this establish the existence of ETI? Where do we go from there? When it comes to the origin of such a signal, why can't we put its origin in the "I don't know" category, as future science may in fact uncover natural explanations for such a signal?
When you consider points 1-4, you'll notice that many common anti-ID arguments are seriously undermined. But there's more.
Of course, SETI works with methodological constraints, assuming a human-like designer in order to make testable predictions. But in what sense is SETI falsifiable? If 25 years of failed experiments do not count as falsification, how many more years are needed? Can we ever falsify the hypothesis that ETI exists? Nevertheless, it is true that SETI is able to test because of its assumptions about a human-like designer. I too have relied on such assumptions when it comes to Intelligent Design, allowing me to better explore the living world from a teleological perspective. I'll have more to say about the remarkable similarities between my ID approach and SETI at a later date.
November 11th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
[...] From Telic Thoughts SETI and Intelligent Design by MikeGene The people at SETI have several useful lessons to teach when it come to detecting non-human design. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Somebody please talk to me… — November 11, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I think the prime number example perfectly illustrates at least one component of intelligence.
The concept of a prime number is a human concept. The only creatures that we know of to have such a concept are human beings.
The question is: is this a uniquely human concept? Is this a unique aspect of human intelligence?
I think most people would intuitively answer: No, prime numbers are, well, prime numbers. Any intelligence, human or otherwise, would eventually bump into the concept of prime numbers. Even though they are a purely intellectual construct, they are somehow "objective." Every form of intelligence would arive at the same notion of prime numbers.
And this is an example that SETI itself uses: a data stream from outer space that is a sequence of prime numbers would certainly represent a (non-earthly) intelligence.
I've seen bloggers who insist that non-human intelligence might not be recognizable by humans. This is nonsense. Intelligence is objective. It intersects with the objective universe around use to be able to understand it, describe it and manipulate it. We might not be able to recognize the purpose of a non-human artifact, but we would certainly be able to recognize it as an artifact of active intelligence.
It is an automatic function of intelligence to be able to recognize intelligence. The fact that the universe is at all comprehensible to human beings demonstrates two things: (1) there is Intelligence at the basis of the universe (else how could it be the object of comprehension), and (2) this Intelligence created a universe in which intelligence could arise — an intelligence that would automatically be capable recognizing its Intelligence.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — November 11, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
November 11th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Hi endoplasmicMessenger,
Actually, SETI is not looking for anything like prime numbers. They simply scan regions of the electromagentic spectrum in search of simple, clean signals that would be difficult to attribute to natural phenomena. Of course, if they somehow stumbled upon something like prime numbers, I am quite sure they would be ecstatic about it.
Comment by MikeGene — November 11, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 2:44 am
Hi Mike,
So SETI scans radio universe and ID scans the biotic universe. One main difference that I see is that a SETI discovery would lead to billions of research dollars, while ID discoveries lead to… well, more and more outrageous materialist explanations. Of course, most every 'ID discovery' is not discovered in the name of ID research per se, but normal biology research.
A SETI find would undoubtedly have scientists crawling over each other to usher in the new paradigm of 'ubiquitous intelligence throughout the universe'. We got a tiny hint of what this would look like with the 'martian microbes' discovery.
ID discoveries, on the other hand, seem to just add another grain of sand to the tipping scale that weighs naturalism vs. design. Eventually, the naturalistic paradigm will not be able to offset the balance, but it will take an awful lot in my opinion.
Why should this be so? I say it's a lack of leadership.
ID theorists have merely coopted naturalist research, and have in turn been coopted by religeous activists. Anybody who says that the DI is leading the ID movement does not know where ID is coming from. ID is coming from the biochem labs and genetic research facilities. ID's lifeblood is not found in "Pandas" but in genome projects and clinical studies that unwittingly tip the scale away from the very thesis which helped generate the data.
In this way, the credit for the ID movement does not belong to Phillip Johnson, Bill Dembski, Ken Hamm, The Discovery Institute, or any of the coopting factions. The real leaders of the ID movement, unwitting as they may be, are Watson, Crick, Pauling, Pasteur, Hodgkin, Haldane,…well, if you trace it back,…Darwin himself. These are the people who dared to uncover the complexity that lies within biology. These are the true leaders who involuntarily add to the weight of design evidence with each published paper. The scientist is the one who is bolstering design theory.
Every new discovery adds to the biotic complexity, and helps to tip the scale just a little more.
Real leadership within the ID movement would not look anything like the DI. It would look like researchers who make discoveries that expose complexity on a deeper and deeper level. Dr. Eran Segal (who cracked the nucleosome code) comes to mind.
Mike, as a biochemist you are in a prime position to be a leader in the ID movement. Not because you are adept at pointing out telic features of biotic reality, but because you have access to a lab where you can make discoveries. It is discovery that is currently feuling ID, not theoretics. The theoreticians are simply adding to the cooption of ID, not leading the way. John Sanford did more for ID when he was inventing the gene gun than he ever did by challenging the 'primary axiom'. I say do the research, and the 'primary axiom' will take care of itself.
Comment by chunkdz — November 12, 2006 @ 2:44 am
November 12th, 2006 at 5:05 am
These are very good questions which I have never seen covered adequately. I would absolutely put that phenomenon in the "don't know" category. The next thing, surely, would be to evaluate various explanations takng into account the details. Where did the signal come from (suppose it came from the middle of our Sun)? How strong is it? What else is going in that part of the Universe? Is it unique (one of the first activities would be to search for similar phenomena elsewhere - suppose we discovered that such a signal is actually quite common from many parts of the universe - once you know what you are looking for)?
The point is that the "designed by an alien civilisation a bit like us" explanation is a hypothesis like any other which must compete with other hypotheses. And, like any other hypothesis, it becomes more plausible by examining it in more detail. If it just a vague "designed by something" - then it is impossible to evaluate it.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 12, 2006 @ 5:05 am
November 12th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Hi chunkdz,
Instead of railing against ID, why don't you simply address the points Mike raised in his post?
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2006 @ 5:55 am
November 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Krauze,
Sorry if it sounded like I was "railing against ID". Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very much pro-ID, and I very much agree with the point Mike is making about the similarities between the SETI approach and his own.
I simply wanted to say that while there are similarities, there is one major difference. The paradigm shift that would accompany a SETI find would be instantaneous. The paradigm shift toward design in biology will be a slow arduous process. This is true even if both disciplines proceed under the same assumptions and similar methodologies and constraints.
I am simply suggesting that ID is currently best served by discovery, rather than theorizing. There is a lot more discovery to be made before the scales tip sufficiently. It was discovery that led Behe and Sanford to adopt a telic outlook - not the other way around. I am certainly not trying to discredit Mike in any way, and his work has definitely been an inspiration to me.
I take his point about SETI to be a given, and just wanted to add a view from another angle.
Comment by chunkdz — November 12, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Hi Mark,
You make some good points. The only thing I would add is that the SETI people would be justified in claiming there is evidence for the existence of ETI.
Comment by MikeGene — November 12, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
November 12th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Hi chunkz,
I have no interest in becoming any type of leader in any type of movement. My interest in ID has always been in the form of an intellectual hobby. And even if I wanted to be some type of leader, the ingredients are not there. For example, I would need some sense of certainty about the issue of ID when, in reality, I have plenty of doubt. Also, I don't think it is a good idea to mix with the lab with a movement. In the lab, you need to be able to follow where ever the data lead. You need to be willing to walk away from a bad hypothesis. It's hard enough as it is when scientists have their reputations and pressures for funding tied to keeping hypotheses alive, but if the lab is also tied to a movement, these essential features would be immensely compromised. The scientist would be torn between loyalty to the movement and loyalty to the lab environment.
Let me turn this back to the SETI example to underscore my point. Consider what happens in point 4; SETI people discover something that strongly suggests the existence of ETI. What do they do next? Mark weighs in with some insightful comments. But imagine the SETI people took another route. Imagine they hooked up with some UFO groups and used to media to help coordinate a political effort to teach about ETI in high school science classrooms. What do you think that would do to SETI and its needed follow-up research?
Also, go back to points 1-3. These are common arguments against ID that are not applied to SETI. Is it a conspiracy? I don't think so. I think that if SETI did try to push a political agenda with the help of UFO groups, suddenly the SETI people would be facing these types of questions and more. Scientists and skeptics are willing to allow SETI plenty of breathing room because a) they recognize the difficulty of the task and b) SETI is not part of any movement. They purchase a) with b).
Turning back to your point about research, we must remember that the scientific method is more than an experiment that generates data and discoveries. The scientific method begins with observations that lead to hypotheses. Those are the essential groundwork. Unless ID is used to recognize certain observations (as observations are not made passively) that in turn generate hypotheses, the ability to generate discoveries does not mean all that much. For example, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree about Sanford. Yes, his gene gun technology has been very helpful when it comes to biotechnology, but how does that help ID? Getting famous scientists to say that they embrace ID doesn't mean that much. Now, if Sanford had developed a particular ID hypothesis and then invented the gene gun to test it, that would be worth noting. I would thus say that the theoretic is indeed essential. If ID people outline the theoretic, the research will come. But you just don't wake up one morning and while eating your Wheaties say to yourself, "By golly, I think I'll go research ID today."
Comment by MikeGene — November 12, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Mike Gene, "The scientific method begins with observations that lead to hypotheses."
Hmmm, in the thread "Ancient Signalling Machinery" Chunkdz and I had a great discussion about the HAR1F gene. It seemed reasonable to us that the mutations that show up in humans cannot be achieved in living organisms by single mutation events, probably not even with less than 3 mulit-mutation events. The ID framework leads one to hypothesize that on the very small scale we have a gene that could not have mutated via the RM+NS method. Do we not have a good example of an observation leading to an hypothesis here?
Comment by bFast — November 13, 2006 @ 1:10 am
November 13th, 2006 at 8:53 am
1. Yes, but they do make some assuptions about that intelligence. It is assumed the aliens are interesed in communicating, are sufficiently advanced to communicate, that they will broadcast signals within a narrow frequency range, that they are physical beings, able to interact with the material world, and restricted to a discrete location in space. Would you be willing to be that specific about your Intelligent Designer?
2. To detect design, SETI starts with a hypothesis - there are aliens out there with the ability and desire to communicate with us - and then draw predictions fromn that hypothesis - they will commuicate by broadcasting this sort of message - and then testing the hypothesis - listening for such a message. If they get such a message, they will tentatively infer design. Is anyone in ID doing similar?
3. I do not think that argument against ID isuseful, but I imagine the SETI researchers would explain the origins of the designers through a process of abiogenesis, followed by evolution through variation and selection.
4. How the signal is classified, how certain the SETI researchers are that it is an alien intelligence, would depend on what the signal is, but we can be sure their "design inference" will be tentative, and open to being disproved later. Sure, it could fall into the "Don't know" box. This seems at odds to ID, especially Dembski's EF, which would, as I understand it, lead one to a "design inference" that is not tentative, and is not open to being disproved later.
"But in what sense is SETI falsifiable? If 25 years of failed experiments do not count as falsification, how many more years are needed? Can we ever falsify the hypothesis that ETI exists?"
As far as I am aware, science has not accepted the hypothesis that ETI exists. If and when it does, perhaps we could address the question of falsification, perhaps in the light of the evidence or argument that got the hypothesis into science. As it is, the hypothesis is not falsifiable, and is not science.
Comment by The Pixie — November 13, 2006 @ 8:53 am
November 13th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Mike, it seems that I have not clarified my point well. I think perhaps I failed to define 'ID movement', so let me do that first. I believe the ID movement actually is not an organized group with an agenda to legitimize ID. I look at 'the ID movement' as more of an inevitability within scientific inquiry. The ID movement is not something that science even wants to happen, but damned if their observations aren't bolstering ID every day despite their protestations, rationalizations, and disclaimers. I'm reminded of Crick's admonition:
Well, Crick's discoveries have feuled the ID movement whether he likes it or not. It can't be avoided. It is an inevitability that the deeper we dig, the more intelligence is revealed. (IMHO).
So when I say that you are in a position to lead the ID movement, I don't mean that you are someone who can lead an agenda driven movement, or fight to put books in high schools, or speak at religeous seminars, or fight the NCSE, or write papers for the DI. In my opinion, the heart and soul of ID is not to be found in those places. It's in the research. It's in the labs. ID currently is an exploration. All we need is a couple of Lewis' and Clarks to lead the voyage.
You wrote:
The movement is merely exploration at this point. Lewis and Clark followed a failed hypothesis, but it didn't thwart westward expansion (which was the underlying agenda of the hypothesis - AND an inevitability, I might add (much as ID is an inevitability). I agree that if you get tied up in the agenda your work will suffer, but I am not advocating anything of the kind. I am saying that ID needs someone to lead the exploration toward the goal of uncovering complexity in nature. Someone completely divorced from the 'ID movement' as defined by the NCSE. Someone doing science for science's sake, with an eye toward ID, without the artificial constraints that the scientific community has imposed upon itself.
Since when do explorers need certainty about their goals? They go on the journey because it's exciting and potentially fulfilling, not because they are certain of the outcome. ID is the most exciting ride in biochemistry at the moment, in my opinion.
Finally, you said
I agree. That's precisely why observation and discovery are the most important things at present time. ID is still in the discovery and observation phase. Naturalism still has too much of a stranglehold to ever relinquish it's grip willingly. It will take an overwhelming weight of discovery to force it to submit to a Popperian shift. This is why I say Sanford's discovery of the gene gun is more valuable to ID than a hypothesis tested with the gene gun. The gene gun has facilitated genetic testing and manipulation with the potential to generate new discovery. Discovery that can reveal unknown complexity at the molecular level.
Any ID hypothesis in the current environment will simply lead to a deluge of naturalistic hypotheses to counter it. Behe found this out. The climate is not yet right. Exploration is the order of the day.
Take for instance the HAR1F gene that Bruce and I talked about. Naturalists have already tried to circumvent an ID hypothesis about it by calling it an "accelerated region". What does that mean? It means, in a nutshell, that whatever they find, they'll be damned if they'll give ID an inch of foot in the door. So what's the best way to proceed?
Well, you could (1) hypothesize that the HAR1F couldn't have formed by random mutation - to which naturalists will reply with a dozen "plausible" pathways by which it "might" have happened.
Or you could (2) take the HAR1F discovery, and look for examples of even MORE complex genes.
Option (1) will doubtless give you a big headache.
Option (2), the explorers option, will not only be more fun, it will add the necessary weight to the design paradigm. Naturalists will not be out-argued, they will simply someday tire of looking silly as they try to rationalize what they observe.
Anyhow, that's my long-winded observation on your SETI example. I totally agree with you about ID operating in a similar fashion to the SETI approach. I just think it noteworthy that ID already has detected a carrier signal and everybody is jumping to make inferences about it rather than explore and look for more. Science evidently doesn't care about design inference, but perhaps they will when the preponderance of observations force them to.
Comment by chunkdz — November 13, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Chunkdz, you make good sense.
I wonder, however, why you have said,
I actually think that the HAR1F might prove to be very difficult to mutate with no more than two simultaneous mutations. Behe presents a couple of "irreduceably complex" examples. However these examples discuss irreduceability on the gene level rather than on the individual mutation level. When there are gazillions of available individual mutations, "just so" stories are rather easy to come by. However, when we are dealing with 18 mutations, as in the HAR1F, I think it may be much more difficult to come up with a just so story.
I really think that one good case of a "you can't get there from here" mutation would open the door wide to scientific acceptance of ID. It would move ID from an hypothesis to a theory, and would displace NDE as an adequate explanation for all of the data.
Chunkdz, on a more personal note, you have been able to glean some pretty detailed info about the HAR1F. Are you a professional, or are you just a more advanced amateur like myself?
Comment by bFast — November 13, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
That would be, "or just a more advanced amateur than myself."
Comment by bFast — November 13, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Hi bFast,
When I said that this hypothesis would give you a headache, I meant that trying to get academia to accept it as evidence of design would be like banging your head against the wall. If Behe's arguments are any kind of example, naturalist academics will not accept that HAR1F was designed unless the designer did it right in front of them. They will come up with a dozen different just-so stories to support a naturalistic explanation.
What I believe WILL change the minds of academia is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of complexity.
I agree that the HAR1F represents (at face value) a stunning example of something that is not supposed to happen naturally. But I think it makes more sense now to search out even more complex genetic anomalies within the HAR, or to search out the relationships of the gene to various developmental mechanisms.
I'm just an interested bystander. You actually piqued my interest in HAR1F in your earlier post, and I started scouring for information. From reading some of your posts here and at ISCID among other places, I think we share the same curiosity about what nature can and can't do.
That's one reason why I appreciate guys like Mike who have that knack for making complicated biology understandable to laymen like myself.
Comment by chunkdz — November 13, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Now if I could only pique the interest of somebody with the capacity and cradentials to seriously explore the HAR1F, that would be cool.
Though it is clear that academia has an active aversion to anything that may appear to be ID, I think that "trying to get academia to accept it as evidence of design would be like banging your head against the wall" is, well, defeatist. The joy of the internet is that even when the journals won't publish something, it can be published anyway. Let the open peer review of the net evaluate a work's accuracy.
"I think it makes more sense now to search out even more complex genetic anomalies within the HAR". Here's where I disagree with you. I hold to the KISS model, and especially when the guys you are trying to get through to are the "Stupid" in the KISS. The smaller the proof, the less wiggle room, that's my view.
Comment by bFast — November 13, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
November 13th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
bFast,
You and me both! I imagine that most researchers would be scared to death of blogging about ID and being discovered by a boss or unfriendly co-worker. How much more fearful would they be of researching an ID friendly hypothesis?
It occurred to me that MikeGene may actually already be working at the vanguard of ID research, but doing so under his/her real name. If that is indeed the case, then that may be the best of both worlds. Researching with a telic eye, while blogging about it pseudonymously. I hope it is so.
True. But they are also the ones that get all the research dollars.
I look at it this way. Darwin's cell was a little sack of protoplasm. It was ubiquitous and had the inherent quality of being naturally self-replicating. This was very convenient at the time.
Of course, the deeper we peer into the cell, the more complex the machinery appears and the more improbable it seems that it occurred without an infusion of intelligence. The naturalist explanations have accordingly become more and more ridiculous sounding.
So how do we refute the materialist who persists in the notion of a natural mechanism for such a complex piece of machinery?
(1)Behe tried with IC to refute a naturalistic explanation, which was promptly met with a slew of naturalistic explanations. It continues to this day.
(2)Keep digging. We will only find more and more complexity on the most basic levels. Eventually the materialists will give up because they will realize how ridiculous their explanations sound.
Actually, now that I think about it, (1) and (2) in tandem seems like an even more effective tack! Naturalists are already doing (2) for us. The only thing that I wonder about is whether some results that don't line up with the naturalist paradigm get squashed, fudged, or simply don't get published. That's why we need ID minded researchers to be the Lewis and Clarks.
Comment by chunkdz — November 13, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
November 14th, 2006 at 1:50 am
[...] SETI and Intelligent Design [...]
Pingback by hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » The Search for Aliens is not like the Search for God — November 14, 2006 @ 1:50 am
November 17th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hi Pixie,
Welcome to Telic Thoughts. Let me attempt to address some of your comments.
I've been doing so for years. Like me, SETI simply assumes a human-like designer. That is, they begin with our extensive experience of human design and extrapolate. Why think that this approach should be restricted only to detecting signals from outer space?
I'm tryin'. Start with a hypothesis "“ there is some form of intelligent agency out there with the ability and desire to design life forms "“ and then draw predictions from that hypothesis "“ this intelligence will design life forms and use them to seed planets "“ and then testing the hypothesis "“ here.
Sure. SETI doesn't bother with such a question because the origin of a designer is separate from the designer's output "“ the designs.
I have always admitted that my design inferences are very tentative. I've probably pointed this out at least 100 times.
Which got me wondering "“ Is SETI science?
Comment by MikeGene — November 17, 2006 @ 12:17 am
November 17th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Hi chunkdz,
Thanks for the clarifications and my apologies for misinterpreting you. As for HAR1F, it is indeed intriguing and I'll try to blog on it.
Comment by MikeGene — November 17, 2006 @ 12:19 am
November 17th, 2006 at 6:46 am
Hi Mike
I must admit I did not realise this was your approach, and my comments were more about how ID in general behaves, unwilling to get pinned down as to whether the universe in a few thousand years old or a few billion.
I would suggest that there is a difference between "science the activity" and "science the body of knowledge". Scientists are engaged in "science the activity", which tries to add to "science the body of knowledge". Children should be taught how to do "science the activity", but should be taught "science the body of knowledge". I think it is perfectly reasonable for ID to be "science the activity", if the research is done following the methodology established in science over many years, and it sounds like maybe you are doing just that.
Comment by The Pixie — November 17, 2006 @ 6:46 am