SETI-- a "pseudoscience?"

Discussion in 'Science' started by Alcott, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    As the recent legal battles to eliminate (or to begin) teaching Intelligent Design [ID] are disdained by the "scientific community" as unfit for science classes because the hypothesis is not science, in that it is not observable or falsifiable, what about the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence [SETI]? We still have an ongoing program funded by the government of searching the skies for radio signals compiled in such a way as to indicate they must be from extraterrestrial, or alien civilaztions on other planets or satellites, almost certainly from other star systems. But as yet there is no evidence to confirm the existence of such civilizations, and our continued failure to detect any such civilizations does not rule out their existence-- therefore this is also not observable or falsifiable. Why should any tax dollars be spent on this, any more than they should be spent on the teaching or researching of Ingtelligent Design?

    In fact, there are some stark similarities between ID and SETI. Believers in God's active role in the creating and sustaining the universe believe he is there and continued observation of the universe will show it scientifically, but since His existence has not been shown on a purely scientific basis, ID is not science. In the same way, intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations have not been shown to exist, but those who want to believe they exist are proponents of continued search for them, claiming such research will sooner or later show that. And the reasons neither ID nor SETI proponents have proven their objectives are also similar... that God does not show Himself to those who do not seek Him and adhere to His commands to trust Him, and likewise ET's do not show themselves because we are simply objects of curiosity for them (if they know we exist) and we must develop further toward what they want us to be-- neither God nor ET's are going to interfere with the progress we are making toward their goals for us.

    There are, of course, more arguments and variations than the simple ones stated above. The religions which have come to dominate most of the world emphasize one way to be what God wants us to be, though for different ones it's not the same. And there are numerous "explanations" why we have not detected ET's if they are there... they have no interest in us, a "primitive" planet by comparison; radio communications are but a very small step in technological development, so we would have to 'catch' their signals at an extremely small corridor of their time span; that their psychology is radically different and they have no concern about other beings light years away; that they are so different physically from us (size, shape, energy utilization, use ammonia like we use water) that there is nothing in common between us, even if they have detected us; it may take many decades or centuries to detect them; and certainly not least, that an advancing technological civilazion inevitably destroys itself sooner or later.

    But back to the original question. If no government funds can be used to teach or research ID, why can they be used for SETI? And a corollary-- is belief in beings not scientifically proven to exist a religion?
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    As of 10 to 15 years ago there was "no evidence that planets existed outside of our solar system".

    In the recent case of ID the issue was NOT "who can TEACH ID" it was "IF you are going to teach braindead atheist darwinist evolutionism anyway -- is it CONSTITUTIONAL to ALLOW you to even NOTIFY students that other options such as ID EXIST as a one paragraphs statement telling them that they can go to the library on their own and that a BOOK EXISTS in the library on ID called OFf Pandas and People"

    The rank censorship mindset and extremist draconian dark ages mentality that would "Support" such a closed minded ill-informed thought-police mentality must be rejected by most Bible believing Christians who have experienced any enlightenment at all from the freedom we have in Christ. The dark prince of this world has convinced the atheists and compromised evolutionists on "one side of the trial" to wrap their brand of extreme censorship in the flag "as if" the constitution EVER said that "Atheism is the only world view the Constitution approves in public school science classes".

    In fact "nothing of the kind" was ever included in the constitution AND certainly not in the declaration of Independence!

    But I digress -- to the point of another thread already posted here.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Non-issue:
    In 1992 NASA apportioned $12 million to the SETI project but funding was stopped by congress in late '93.

    The SETI project has been funded privately since then.

    Statistically the SETI project is a waste of time and money.
    Pragmatically it's a PR tool for evolutionists.

    Rob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I do not believe that SETI argues for or against the rank atheist darwinist evolutionist agendas.

    The subject is neutral to both atheism and Bible believing Christians.

    The only thing that would be "atheist" is to claim to find other sinful fallen intelligences that are not fallen angel. (Likely they would claim evolutionism as their faith one supposes).

    Until such a claim is made - the whole field is neutral. In Heb 1:1-5 God claims to have made "The Worlds" through Christ - God the Son.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    SETI is privately funded.

    The scientific community as a whole thinks they're a bunch of kooks.

    Looks consistent to me! [​IMG]
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Actually there has been NO science at all that has "debunked SETI" even remotely.

    The premise of SETI is vital to evolutionists that want to "pretend" that their stories are not just "so much unlikely and impossible wishful thinking". They would LIKE to imagine that their stores are even "probable".

    You can't string a bunch of unproven "just so stories" like Darwinian Evolutionists do and then say "and of course this miracle could only have happened right here - one shot to work the miracle". Basically the more "Stand on your head miracles" that Darwinian evolutionists must "promote" they more embarrassing their case!

    So "given" that we are in an old universe where this "evolution thing" is happening all the time - they HAVE to conclude "stuff is out there" like us and even beyond "us".

    All SETI is doing is "proposing" a way to use our simplistic first generation technology to "detect" something "intelligent".

    (Of course Darwinists have already shown a certain allergic reaction to the idea of "intelligence" but that is another story).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about them? SETI is an organization, not a science or pseudoscience. They're an organization that is searching for evidence of something. In and of itself, there's nothing pseudoscientific about that. Given the immense amount of time it takes radio waves to travel from one star to another, gathering such evidence takes a very long length of time.
     
  8. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    One site I just looked up says government funding for SETI was not completely abolished until 2005. If searching for evidence of something is not pseudoscience, then is it science? Were da Gama's, Columbus', and Cook's voyages science? Is searching for God and evidence of Him science? Is searching for beings not proven and to exist and evidence of them science?

    And if SETI is an organization, then maybe I should write in small case, as I was not referring to one organization. And since most info on radioastronomy does include some part, large or small, about detecting extraterrestrial intelligent beings, I doubt if it is absolutely unfunded by government, as many universities have departments of radioastronomy.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    SCIENCE is completely devoted to the process of reaching into the unknown and gaining understanding of what we do not already know as well as "applying" the knowledge already gained in our efforts to reach into the unknown in the past.

    If science could be "limited" to discovering nothing new and just applying what we already know - it would be reduced to nothing more than "arts and crafts".

    Evolutionists "love to redefined science" scooting it all over the table in ceaseless efforts to avoid having to confess they are abusing it. As soon as facts in Nature are found that disconfirm their pet doctrines they cry out "it is unconstitutional to know that fact" because that fact does not fit atheism and
    Atheist Darwinist evolutionists say that because in their own minds "Science IS Atheism"!!

    In the "fear of God" model that they have adopted they want to say "if I don't know it as an atheist it is not science" but science IS very much in the business of reaching into the unknown.

    So yes - SETI is very much -- "True SCIENCE". It takes a premise and hypothesis based on observed facts today and is trying to TEST it with something totally foreign to atheist evolutionists -- "predicted and verifiable facts".

    Evolutionists have done all in their power to add to their "many redifinitions of science" the definition of "popularity among Atheist scientists". This is the fascinating point in their "abuse of science game" where the rule is made up that if a particular theory being studied is not "popular enough among atheist scientists" then "it is not science".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some of my favorite science facts include the light coming from galaxies millions of light years away, the presence of more prominance for the extra toes in fossil horses, and the shared vitamin c defiency with other primates.

    These indicate old earth and evolution.

    What are some of your favorite facts of science?
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Stasis as S. J. Gould likes to call it.

    Irreducible complexity as Dr Behe likes to Call it.

    For a few.

    (As contrasted to what Colin Patterson calls "Stories EASY ENOUGH to TELL but they are NOT science".

    But the point of this thread is that SETI - is merely another branch of study trying to solve a puzzle using all the available science at hand to do so.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stasis - as in keeping a good design going once its settled into? Hardly an argument against evolution.

    Irrducible complexity? That's only a conjecture.
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Irreducible complexity of protein engines, encoding and decoding systems, error correcting systems etc) is in fact "observation" that is "clearly seen in nature". Complexities in nature are something even "the pagans can see" according to Romans 1 and Francis Crick.

    But for a true believer in Atheist Darwinian evolutionism these are all just "more inconvenient facts to gloss over".

    How "predictable".

    But the point of this thread is that SETI - is merely another branch of study trying to solve a puzzle using all the available science at hand to do so.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I freely concede the complexity. Its the irriducible part of the phrase that is conjecture, pure and simple.
     
  15. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw one quote from Carl Sagan, who was supposed to be one of the first to promote SETI....
    someone asked Sagan "how many messages would it take to convince you that there is intelligent life in the universe?"
    Sagan said "just one message."

    So if just one message was enough to convince an atheist that there was intelligent life elsewhere, why wouldn't the 3 billion bit message encoded in DNA convince him?

    It convinced Antony Flew.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    What "convinced" Flew was that he thought that the origin of life was too difficult. He also admitted at the time that recent work on abiogenesis was not something with which he had kept up with. He did not know what ideas were out there. After checking it out, he said "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."

    As far as the other, just what message is that you think that we can find in the genome? The genome bears all of the traits that one would expect if it had been built up over billions of years through natural processes.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by BobRyan:
    [g systems, error correcting systems etc) is in fact "observation" that is "clearly seen in nature". Complexities in nature are something even "the pQB] (Irreducible complexity of protein engines, encoding and decodinagans can see" according to Romans 1 and Francis Crick.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You mean as in the "complexity showing intelligent Design and the invisible attributes of infinite God clearly seen EVEN by pagans in those things that HAVE BEEN MADE"??

    Is this where you step up to the level of an unbelieving pagan on the topic of creation and signs of intelligence?

    I would be greatly surprised to see you step up to that point - you have been very reluctant to go there in the past.
     
  18. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    The world has been rid of Sagan for over 9 years now, and although I could never have liked the guy, he was clever. Being a "pop-culture scientist" assures that you will get some blasting from both ends of the science v. faith spectrum, but if you promote yourself and have the money and backing to do so, you will be popular.

    I say he's clever because in his views on "travels in time and space" and extraterrestrial intelligent beings, he stays 'scientific' enough to say nothing that can be inherantly disproved, but are full of his optimistism that we will make contact with these beings and that we will have travel to other stars, including fast star travel, near the speed of light, in the coming milleniums. He admits the final number determinied by the Drake Equation may be one, and that there is no evidence that we have ever been visited by extraterrestrials; yet he argues fervently for the scientific method, and accepting its conclusions, no matter how much these conclusions please or displease us... then he turns from believing only what has been determined by science to exist and says, "I believe the universe is just teeming with life!" So he believes what he wants to believe, if it can't be proved or disproved-- he just seems to have hated it when others did this, wanting to believe something he didn't; principally the existence of a supreme being.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alcott, you're making a common mistake. You're confusing Sagan's "teeming with life" belief with teeming with intelligent life".

    I, too, believe that the universe is abundant with life elswhere besides this planet. But somewhere, we humans have permitted out self-centeredness to presume that life elsewhere equals aliens with two eyes, two arms, two legs, 6 feet tall, etc etc etc. On the contrary. Life forms elsewhere will be subject to their individual environment, and may not remotely resemble living things we come into contact with (animals, plants, etc). Now, taht said, do I believe that there are other life forms that are able to communicate with us? I think it's possible, but as far as likelihood, I haven't a clue. Plus, the distance of space makes it, at least today, incredibly unlikely to come into contact with one. But should we listen? Of that I have no objection.

    The Christian community was denouncing the search for planets on other stars, insisting they didn't exist. Since the days of Sagan, we've found stars with other planets. Then, Christians said earthlike planets were an impossibility. We're just now beginning to find earthlike planets. Now, the Christian community is once again raising the bar and saying "there's no life on any other earthlike planets". I'm sure than, in my lifetime, we will find some form of life on another planet. I'm guessing such discovered like will be a bacteria or somethign similar. When this happens, I have no doubt Christians will once again raise the bar.
     
  20. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,455
    Likes Received:
    93
    I was certain Sagan's "teeming with life" quote meant life of any kind, so there's no mistake there. If we want to get down to it, he did say his estimate of the Drake equation is about one million technical civilizations in the galaxy [http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=181431].

    Now, directing us back to the subject of the OP, you say you have "no objection" to 'listening' to signals from technilogical alien civilizations, which are not known to exist and certainly have not been shown scientifically to exist. I suppose by "we" you mean researchers of the SETI Institute, or possibly both private and state-supported university research projects. If these supposed alien beings, like God, have not been scientifically proven to exist, though many hope they do (it seems), does this constitute a religion?
     

Share This Page

Loading...