Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: codes, design, creation, intelligence
Message-ID: <565@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 19:12:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.565
Posted: Mon Jul 15 19:12:22 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 03:17:02 EDT
References: <1270@uwmacc.UUCP> <617@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 35
Summary: 

In article <617@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) writes:
>In article dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes:
>
>
>>P.S.  I'll put the shoe on the other foot now:  Would some evolutionist on the
>>net care to give us a definition of design which would allow SETI to recognize
>>created patterns but would differentiate against those patterns found here on
>>earth evolutionists claim to be produced only by natural processes?  Well?????
>
>
>Sure.  No problem.  Natural processes won't answer back when we try to
>broadcast back to them, will they.  If we send a craft to visit the source,
>there won't be anyone home if it is a natural process.  The point is that the
>SETI team at no point said that a patterned transmission was *proof* of
>intelligence.  That statement that they did would seem to be the product of
>the creationist somewhat lower standard of proof.

	Actually, I would add something else. A designed object has
features which are specifically oriented towards fulfilling some
purpose intended by the designer. Thus the critical aspect of design
is *intent*. Purposive features in living things are rarely the result
of intent on the part of the organism in question, they are usually
inherited! Thus, a non-random signal which can be shown to carry
information of value to sentient beings in a from not corresponding
to any reasonable physical process would be presumtive evidence of
design(i.e a raster scan image, or a modulated wave which corrsponds
to articulated sounds). Note, even this is *not* *proof* of design,
only circumstantial evidence thereof, and would require the validation
mentioned by Mr Howes.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen