Public Schools Are Not Supposed To Promote Religion
Public schools are not supposed to be in the business of promoting religion. ID proponents have made a half-hearted effort to secularize ID, but at the end of the day, their true motivations always shine through. Phillip Johnson, the so-called "father of Intelligent Design," once told a religious audience that his goal is to use ID to instill doubt about evolution in people's minds and then introduce them to "the truth" of Jesus Christ. If convincing someone to adopt a new religion is your end goal, what you are doing is not science. It is proselytizing.
In light of this, public schools would do well to steer way clear of Intelligent Design. Any schools that seek to introduce it into the classroom are likely to end up like the board in Dover -- as international laughingstocks facing huge legal bills.
By the way, voters in Dover go so tired of the antics of the pro-ID faction on the board that they voted out every last one of them. Even in small-town America, it seems, the desire is for real science education in the classroom and religious instruction in church.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Poblic schools are not to promote religion .Is that a fact? OK where do you get right from wrong?Why do we have laws and where did these laws come from?Most of the laws came from the Bible.Look at the ten commandments 5 of them are laws of the land.do we teach kids in public schools to be lawless?
the 10 commandments are not the sole source of morality. The laws of the Chinese, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Vedic, Japanese, Incans, and numerous others were developed long before their people ever heard of the 10. Not teaching the 5 commandments will not make people lawless any more then not teaching them the rules of Buddha.
What I am saying is if we teach laws.5 laws of the land are from the Bible.So you are teaching religion .
or more specifically... Yes, if we teach those 5 laws as originating from a divine source. If we teach that they are part of a historical environment along side Hammurabbi's code and the writings of Greek ethicist then it is not teaching religion .
Why don't we add those in?
And believe me, those commandments weren't invented at that time. There wasn't a free-for-all on murder or theft before Moses came down from the mountain. The Code of Hammurabi had those prohibitions.
Why dont you tell me?Are they needed to for health and safety of the country?
I have been a Christian most of my life and the ten years I lived outside the community was hell on earth. I liked Ben Steins DVD, EXPELLED, and he said it all for me!
I also like the web site WWW.GODINSCIENCE.ORG
Gd bless you
but they do. Well for a while longer anyway. I think the public schools are going to take the same route as the car dealers and home banking crisis ie bankrupcy. Parents have had enough and I predict a serious decline in public school attendance this next year and a half. Just my home schooling mother thoughts.
How do public schools 'support hate of religion '?
1. http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/09/30/adf-sues-after-student-arrest-threatened-for-sharing-the-gospel / Just for your information this is the same college that attacked me, another Christian, so very many years ago, for speaking out against homosexuality . Thank you ADF! God bless you, Doziers victory is mine too
http://www.thefire.org/index.php /article/10166.html
2. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=3709
3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0906uc.asp Quote:The Update article goes on to say that as the discussion continued about the biology books, “it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science , especially if there were a conflict over a ‘factual scientific issue.’”
As reported by the Inside Higher Ed, the science courses that have been rejected teach not only creationism or intelligent design , but also teach the “standard content of evolution,” even if the teachers do not believe the content.end quote
4. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6875/is_n4_11/ai_n25023460 /
5. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE .view&pageId=94537
6. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090216/christian-student-alleges-professor-censored-speech-on-god/index.html
7. http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4823 This is a repeat its just too awful to let it go.
There are way too many stories out there to provide on this one site all I can say is the wont destroy Christianity because they hurt Christians, it only makes them look bad and galvonizes the resolve of people of faith to continue to hold out their testimonies in a world of true hate and darkness.
1) It sounds like there was an overarching policy limiting students speech on campus for this one... it did not directly target religions, or a specific religion .
2) no indication that the restrictions were targeted at religion. The link that pointed towards 'denigrating religions that are unfavorable to homosexuality ' came back with a 404 error.
3) it is up to the university to set their requirements... a student with no background in modern biological theories has as much place in a modern university program as a young-earther has in geology, or a geocentrist has in astronomy.
4) From that article:
"1. There was no official or written policy or understanding related to abortion or sterilization. There was, however, what appears to be a consensus among interviewers and committee members that those who opposed either required special questioning about their views. No such questioning was needed of those who supported such views."
"The 1978 Health, Education, and Welfare survey did not go far enough in the questions it posed, nor did it include the opinions of applicants, who would be better placed to answer its questions. Now another, more comprehensive, governmental survey would be appropriate with a wider scope to respond to the questions left unanswered by the 1978 survey."
5) World Net Daily? Really? In reading it I can see no documented instances of hatred, no indication that policies were enacted... just that students were worried about it.
6/7) the actions of one lone professor... no evidence that it was supported by the school...
so from six examples given ONE relates to a Christian student being harassed by his professor.
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/search/SearchResults.aspx?mid=860&words=yuba college
But dont be sad we are making TREMENDOUS PROGRESS and REALLY MAKING A FANTASTIC DIFFERENCE in the lives of the next generation!
By the "logic" of the anti-IDists, the current theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Richard Dawkins once stated it allows for one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Just because some or even most IDists are religious does NOT mean that ID is religious.
The ONLY way to label Intelligent Design "religious" is to change the definition of religion.
And BTW, Albert Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
Why do the anti-IDists insist on lame science?
As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.
And the bottom line is if the anti-ID side actually had some scientific evidence for their position ID would go away.
--Einstein
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ~ Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side--
Seems Einstein considers the structure of the world as revealed by science the 'religion'. It always helps to comprehend the context in which these quote mines were produced.
After all in the same paper Joe quotes, Einstein also remarked
--
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....
--
I never said anything about Einstein's religious convictions. Not one word.
ID is not about a personal God. ID does not require a God at all. ID does not require intervention.
The quote stands:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.”- Albert Einstein
And seeing that PvM doesn't care about the truth why is he a scientist?
--Joe G
I never said anything about Einstein's religious convictions. Not one word.
--
and yet Joe G also said
--
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
--
In order to understand this comment by Einstein, you have to understand Einstein's religious convictions lest one is merely interested in 'quote mining' but then why quote Einstein. Einstein's position is actually perpendicular to ID where Einstein says that the regularity of nature is the religious aspect of science. In other words, it renders ID meaningless as it proposes regularity not the absence thereof, which would trigger the 'design inference'.
Contrary thus to Joe's words, he should have either considered Einstein's religious convictions when he quoted him or he should not have quote Einstein. To quote Einstein as if it add relevance and credibility to Joes argument is just 'mining'
--And seeing that PvM doesn't care about the truth why is he a scientist?--
On the contrary, I have been asking you several times now: How does ID explains the bacterial flagella.
Joe is right in one aspect, given the path chosen by ID, it may very well point to natural designers after all. But why call it 'design' then? As the supernatural is really the only focus of its 'approach' of eliminating natural processes of regularity of chance. What remains is either the empty set, or our ignorance or the supernatural.
To understand how Einstein used the word religion you need to understand his position, otherwise it is just quote mining.
--
As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.
--
Please tell us how does ID explain the genetic code, and I am sure you can explain to us the various hypotheses and the evidence as to how science explains it.
But you have made a clear case that ID is all about ignorance, your 'bottom line' betrays' you.
So surprise me, explain to us how ID explains the genetic code. And lacking that, show that you understand today's best explanations and admit that ID is not an inference to best explanation.
Looking forward to your reply.
As to your evolution is atheistic by the same logic, you are missing two important points. One, ID is not scientifically fruitful, two, ID was 'created' to get God inside the class rooms. With such a history, it is not hard to understand why people correctly have come to realize ID is at best a poor theology.
As for scientific evidence for ID start with the genetic code. The day we observe nature, operating freely, putting together a code is the day that MicroSoft will lay off all their programmers because they are unecessary.
--
PvM
Please tell us how does ID explain the genetic code, and I am sure you can explain to us the various hypotheses and the evidence as to how science explains it.
---
ID explains the genetic code the same way we explain a computer code.
Again instead of asking questions all you have to do is to demonstrate that nature, operating freely can put together such a code.
However it is obvious you will never even attempt such a thing.
PvM:
But you have made a clear case that ID is all about ignorance, your 'bottom line' betrays' you.
--
Now you are just lying. I have stated that ID relies on our experience, which means it does NOT rely on our ignorance.
YOUR position, however, counts on ignorance.
Also ID was NOT created to get "God" into anything. But thatnk you for onbce again demonstrating your dishonesty.
It is clear that ID is an areligious approach to origins.
--Joe G
Now you are just lying. I have stated that ID relies on our experience, which means it does NOT rely on our ignorance.
--
What experience do we have with bacterial flagella and the genetic code? Other than that there is a superficial similarity with outboard engines and 'computer code'. Claims of positive experience when inferring design may be valid with ordinary design, which is how real science infers design and agency, but said method is woefully flawed when it comes to 'rarefied' design for which we have no experience.
Now, there is nothing wrong with using the concept of design with formulating hypotheses. After all, the heart was historically seen as a pump, leading science to proceed in a fruitful area. But here we should not conflate the usefulness with a scientific necessity or relevance.
--ID explains the genetic code the same way we explain a computer code.--
Poof?...
And thus, lacking a real response, Joe moves the goalposts back to science to show how it explains the genetic code. Let's thus explore why ID once again remains scientifically vacuous. All it can do is 'it looks designed', 'science cannot explain it'
But science has indeed explanations for how the genetic code arose, and although there are still many gaps, science has uncovered many new features to support its hypotheses. Let me know when you have located the compiler. ID once again has been shown to remain unable to propose any competing hypothesis which explains the data better than science.
As to ID not being invented to get God into anything, I guess you are calling your own ID proponents to be dishonest? Wow...
Sure, appeal to the supernatural is areligious.
ROTFL, next time you defend ID in court... Behe and Fuller already were to honest to admit that it is really all about the supernatural.
--Joe G
The ONLY way to label Intelligent Design "religious" is to change the definition of religion.
--
Tell that to Philip Johnson
--Johnson
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”
--
Straight from the mouth of an ID proponent.
QED
--
And the bottom line is if the anti-ID side actually had some scientific evidence for their position ID would go away.
---
Unlikely, ID just would do what it has been doing, move its goalposts and still be vacuous
As you have been told already what Phil says is irrelevant to ID. Or you have to allow what Dawkins says about the theory of evolution.
What part of that don't you understand?
And it is a fact that if you could support your position with real data ID would go away.
You can whine all you want but that will not change that fact.
I guess this means that what ID proponents say about ID, is irrelevant even though said proponents are the ones who started ID?
Fascinating indeed. But contrary to your claims, what Phil says and said was incredibly relevant in establishing the creationist roots and foundations of ID, which combined with its lack of scientific content, dooms it to irrelevancy
ID will never go away, we have already seen how it just moves its goalposts, all the way to front loaded design.
What has ID done again for our understanding of the bacterial flagella Joe? Why is it so hard to address this simple question Joe?
Just what if there is a Creator? Isn't science after truth? Has science proven that there is no Creator? Why is recognizing the possibility that there was intelligence behind the emergence of life a non-scientific idea?
Basically what you are saying is that if there was a Creator or intelligence behind the emergence of life, science will never be able to come up with the right answer, right?
So your whole premise for ID being non-scientific is the unproven worldview of naturalism?
You start off right from the get go with the assumption that there is no Creator or any intelligence involved in the emergence of life and go and try and prove your idea with science.
If you want to limit science to working within the little box of naturalism, fine, but then, you have to admit that you might be wrong from the start.
I think that is what ID is trying to show us. They simply want to show that there is good scientific evidence for considering the role of intelligence in the emergence of life. Does that fit with naturalism? No, but since when must scientists bow the knee to naturalism to do good science?
Many great scientists of the past did not bow the knee to Naturalism and yet we revere them today for their amazing achievements. Looking for design in nature is a great way to do science. Naturalists have no way to explain the amazing desing we see in Nature. Their philosophy would not predict order and design, yet that is exactly what we find. If you have the faith to believe in millions of naturalistic miracles of chance, great. I admire your faith. But not everyone has as much faith in the random powers of evolution.
Since you cannot even prove your worldview, don't you think it would be wise to look at both sides of the issue if you are sincerely after the truth?....
I do.
"They simply want to show that there is good scientific evidence for considering the role of intelligence in the emergence of life."
Unfortunately for them, they have failed. They have no such "scientific evidence".
"don't you think it would be wise to look at both sides of the issue"
Of course. And the so-called "intelligent design" side has failed.
"Unfortunately for them, they have failed. They have no such "scientific evidence"."
"Of course. And the so-called " intelligent design " side has failed."
Wow, just when I thought PvM had a serious lack of substance! Can you give at least some kind of reasoning behind the idea that they not only have no evidence but have failed?
Why should I waste more than 30 seconds attempting to communicate with an ignoramus?
There is a wonderful world wide web out there with a lot of substance. But that would be asking too much, I'm sure.
"Why should I waste more than 30 seconds attempting to communicate with an ignoramus?"
I'm asking myself the same thing.
"There is a wonderful world wide web out there with a lot of substance. But that would be asking too much, I'm sure."
I agree. Here's my personal favorite:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/scientificResearch /
Of course the Disco 'Tute is the discovery of nonsense. No real scientist would waste even 30 seconds there.
"Of course the Disco 'Tute is the discovery of nonsense. No real scientist would waste even 30 seconds there."
Really?
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
There are 900+ real scientists named "Steve" that say this misleading Disco 'Tute statement is wrong, wrong, wrong.
"There are 900+ real scientists named "Steve" that say this misleading Disco 'Tute statement is wrong, wrong, wrong."
You claimed that no real scientist would ever be affiliated with the DI. You've admitted your wrong, and that your argument INSTEAD is that truth is in numbers.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
The whole point of 900+ real scientists named "Steve" is to be a parody.
So it's not an attempt to make an argument - it's to show how silly such an appeal to popularity really is.
And the silly list of people at the Disco 'Tute are not "affiliated" with the DI.
And it's obvious that many of them have no expertise in a relevant field.
And the actual "dissent" statement says nothing about " intelligent design ".
So it's like "the Theory of Evolution is not perfect, therefore intelligent design is correct".
Silly, silly silly.
"The whole point of 900+ real scientists named "Steve" is to be a parody.
So it's not an attempt to make an argument - it's to show how silly such an appeal to popularity really is."
Ummm yeah, pretty sure that's what we said too.
"And the silly list of people at the Disco 'Tute are not "affiliated" with the DI."
So what? A good portion of them are: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php
"And the actual "dissent" statement says nothing about " intelligent design "."
Doesn't have to. It's more then enough to refute your original claim that no scientist would ever affiliate themselves with any of the DI's various causes.
"So it's like "the Theory of Evolution is not perfect, therefore intelligent design is correct".
Silly, silly silly."
Not quite: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1136
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1152
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1161
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."
Yes, this is where we started and now we have come full circle. Note the prejudiced use of "undirected" and "chance-based" without the use of the word "selection".
In other words, since evolution obvious can't properly explain current reality (in our deluded opinion), therefore something outside of this reality must have/had/be interfering. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
So, go back to 4 months ago and re-read all of the discussion.
"Yes, this is where we started and now we have come full circle. Note the prejudiced use of "undirected" and "chance-based" without the use of the word "selection"."
Click here: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php #questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as NATURAL SELECTION."
(emphasis mine)
Pwned.
"Yes, this is where we started and now we have come full circle. Note the prejudiced use of "undirected" and "chance-based" without the use of the word "selection"."
Selection is chance based and undirected.
"In other words, since evolution obvious can't properly explain current reality (in our deluded opinion), therefore something outside of this reality must have/had/be interfering. Stupid, stupid, stupid."
If we conclude that selection cannot produce something, what's the best conclusion we can draw thereafter?
"So, go back to 4 months ago and re-read all of the discussion."
Now what?
"If we conclude that selection cannot produce something,..."
Then you are wrong. Your statement is a negative and you can never prove this negative. So, that is where " intelligent design " starts - "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" and ends. It is an opinion with no evidence since the only evidence would be that "selection cannot produce something" and that is a negative and silly.
"Now what?"
Now you go back and reread everything and understand why "intelligent design" does not really mean anything.
"Then you are wrong. Your statement is a negative and you can never prove this negative."
Care to find another explanation then?
"So, that is where " intelligent design " starts - "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" and ends. It is an opinion with no evidence since the only evidence would be that "selection cannot produce something" and that is a negative and silly."
See the above point. If there's another choice other than directed vs undirected, then let us know. Yes, a forum is watching an taking great pleasure in reading your (lack of) contributions.
"Now you go back and reread everything and understand why "intelligent design" does not really mean anything."
Couldn't find anything that explained why. Maybe you could do that for me. Or find a place in which you actually explained why. Or just wave you're hand and pretend you've answered everything. That's something you're good at.
"Care to find another explanation then?"
Your "undirected" is the other explanation. Now we have the conundrum. It is up to me to prove that "undirected" evolution "explains everything"? I can't "prove" that, but there's no evidence against it.
Or is it up to you to prove that "undirected" evolution does not explain everything? All you have to do is find "something" that evolution cannot "explain". It would seem that you think you have found that, but no reasonable person seems to agree.
"Couldn't find anything that explained why."
It doesn't "mean anything" because it doesn't really "explain" anything. Science "explains" things. "Intelligent design" explains everything or nothing, so it doesn't really explain anything.
Why should there seem to be a "tree of life"? It's clear that genetic inheritance explains this. How does "intelligent design" really "explain" this? Magic? Supernatural? The designer wills it?
"How does " intelligent design " really "explain" this? Magic? Supernatural? The designer wills it?"
Either through re-working prior existing designs, or through some form of front-loading.
"Either through re-working prior existing designs"
Hold on right there. Of course evolution has the prior patent on "re-working existing designs". You can't use this unless you can prove that evolution is incapable of properly re-working the pre-existing design to come up with the currently existing design. Just one more attempt to prove a negative.
"or through some form of front-loading"
Riiiiiight. Now you have really gone off the deep end. Anyone with any sense knows that "front-loading" resistance to a new drug is ridiculous compared to evolving any one of 20 possible defenses (against penicillin for example).
"Hold on right there. Of course evolution has the prior patent on "re-working existing designs"."
Actually, the only thing that can get a "patent" on anything is a designer, or directive force of some kind.
"You can't use this unless you can prove that evolution is incapable of properly re-working the pre-existing design to come up with the currently existing design."
Very well then:
http://www.discovery.org/a/1205
So with that criteria satisfied, what's next? Oh wait...
"Just one more attempt to prove a negative."
We know systems which are unlikely to have arisen via undirected processes and that serve some sort of function arise from prior forethought or design (such as a motor). So I'm pretty sure this is more than just a negative argument.
"Riiiiiight. Now you have really gone off the deep end. Anyone with any sense knows that "front-loading" resistance to a new drug is ridiculous compared to evolving any one of 20 possible defenses (against penicillin for example)."
I'll bet dollars to donuts you can even explain to me what front-loading actually means. And what are these "defenses" and what do they have to do with our discussion?
Nonsense from 2002? Hilarious.
"We know systems which are unlikely to have arisen via undirected processes"
Riiight. Unlikely. Therefore impossible? I think not.
"So I'm pretty sure this is more than just a negative argument."
Unlikely is no argument at all. Impossible is a negative argument.
"front-loading"
Front-loading is a creationist term which is supposed to mean that the "information" was already present (front-loaded) rather than created by evolution .
"Nonsense from 2002? Hilarious."
Hey, it sure beats nonsense from 150 years ago.
"Riiight. Unlikely. Therefore impossible? I think not."
No, just unlikely. Unlikely in the sense that someone could survive an unprotected shotgun wound.
"Unlikely is no argument at all."
Then I guess we'll have to reject everything else in science that uses it. By your logic, do you assume that the Earth isn't 4.56 billion years old after all because pointing out that it's "unlikely" for it to be younger is "no argument at all?"
Impossible is a negative argument.
In part it is. Coupled with what we know intelligences do on a regular basis, it adds to the positive argument as well.
"Front-loading is a creationist term which is supposed to mean that the "information" was already present (front-loaded) rather than created by evolution ."
I have yet to see a creationist use the term, but what's the scientific argument you present against it?
"It doesn't "mean anything" because it doesn't really "explain" anything."
Postulating an agency or intellect behind various features of the natural world is already a part of many scientific enterprises. An example would be SETI. Are they not explaining anything if they insist that ET's of some kind made a particular signal? I'm assuming you're saying we must know how the telic force operates in order to draw effective conclusions correct?
"Science "explains" things. "Intelligent design" explains everything or nothing, so it doesn't really explain anything."
So base your reasoning on the dichotomy between explaining everything, or explaining nothing at all. Would Modern Synthesis thus be invalid since it cannot explain the process by which abiogenesis occurred?
"Why should there seem to be a "tree of life"? It's clear that genetic inheritance explains this."
By all means, I accept common descent, and any other aftereffects of inheritance.
"Postulating an agency or intellect behind various features of the natural world is already a part of many scientific enterprises. An example would be SETI. Are they not explaining anything if they insist that ET's of some kind made a particular signal? I'm assuming you're saying we must know how the telic force operates in order to draw effective conclusions correct?"
SETI is looking for evidence of ET communication in the signal background... they are not postulating that any given signal is from such a source, just that IF there are ETs and IF they use radio communication that we may be able to detect those signals. To this date they have found nothing... nor have they claimed to find anything. SETI is still at the Hypothesis part of the process, not really the Theory. Once they find a signal they have to demonstrate that it is artificial in nature. ID faces the same challenges... not only must it explain the currently observed behavior but it also must provide evidence in contradiction to the current theory predicts.
"SETI is looking for evidence of ET communication in the signal background... they are not postulating that any given signal is from such a source, just that IF there are ETs and IF they use radio communication that we may be able to detect those signals."
Sounds like ID to me, trying to sort out informative signals from random noise, and not putting the finger on any one source.
"To this date they have found nothing... nor have they claimed to find anything."
Okay, so now we have one difference between the two.
"SETI is still at the Hypothesis part of the process, not really the Theory. Once they find a signal they have to demonstrate that it is artificial in nature."
Pretty sure if they found a signal that could not have been produced by random background radiation, such as a string of prime numbers (yes, referring to the movie contact here), they can reasonably conclude it was the product of intelligence and not some crap picked up from a super nova.
"ID faces the same challenges... not only must it explain the currently observed behavior but it also must provide evidence in contradiction to the current theory predicts."
Are you saying it must provide evidence against an existing theory to be valid?
"Sounds like ID to me, trying to sort out informative signals from random noise, and not putting the finger on any one source."
The difference being that if SETI found a signal that was likely to be from an alien intelligence that they would then not only have to fully demonstrate its artificial nature, but would also have to 'finger the source'... identifying both the source and the purpose behind the signal.
"Pretty sure if they found a signal that could not have been produced by random background radiation, such as a string of prime numbers (yes, referring to the movie contact here), they can reasonably conclude it was the product of intelligence and not some crap picked up from a super nova."
A signal of apparent artificial nature would have to be verified, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not part of the background noise. If a stream of prime numbers was detected then they would not just say "Hey found a signal... everyone can go home"... instead it would open up a whole new world of analysis as scientists attempted to both verify the signal and determine it's purpose and origin.
"Are you saying it must provide evidence against an existing theory to be valid?"
In a sense yes. To supplant evolution as the primary theory a new theory would have to both explain what the current theory does and explain what the current theory is not capable of explaining... or offer a better explanation for observed phenomena.
"The difference being that if SETI found a signal that was likely to be from an alien intelligence that they would then not only have to fully demonstrate its artificial nature, but would also have to 'finger the source'... identifying both the source and the purpose behind the signal."
No they wouldn't, if they did then SETI would be a completely futile research project since no one can ever travel to the source of a signal and then determine (by your standards) that the signal is artificial.
"A signal of apparent artificial nature would have to be verified, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not part of the background noise."
Like determining if it's beyond the reach of a random universe in producing it (e.g. 500 bits of information)?
"If a stream of prime numbers was detected then they would not just say "Hey found a signal... everyone can go home"... instead it would open up a whole new world of analysis as scientists attempted to both verify the signal and determine it's purpose and origin."
Indeed, additional research is possible after such a signal is received (which is certainly a lot more complex than the "WOW!" signal that generated some excitement a while back. But that all happens AFTER they determine the signal is not the product of random background noise.
"In a sense yes. To supplant evolution as the primary theory a new theory would have to both explain what the current theory does and explain what the current theory is not capable of explaining... or offer a better explanation for observed phenomena."
Should we start with microbiology then?