Paul’s Blog

I posted a question to my facebook page the other day, which was misunderstood by at least one person.  Like so few arguments, it began with an engaging distractor, before the final reveal.  Here is the question again, exactly as I posted it originally:

“Still no “complex” signals at SETI! Imagine though a signal at several wavelengths (frequencies), each a binary string (or analog scaler representation). One channel identifies elements (mass, etc.), another bond strength/type, others encode geometry and so on – essentially transfering the structure of DNA. Is signal (info) complexity an argument for an intelligent designer?”

Ok, so here’s the explanation in a bit more detail.  Whether we humans were planted here by aliens who light-heartedly continue to transmit their drafting board plans, evolved (with guidance/help) by some Intelligent Designer, or arose purely by random chance from basic chemicals IS IRRELEVANT to my question.

I’m just trying to find out if the argument for a designer, based on a high degree of functional (useful) complexity, is a sound and valid argument?  Part of the reason I’m asking, is that I would expect a strong reaction if the SETI team began receiving a clearly intelligible and universally acknowledged complex signal (such as the one I described).  If that signal was more than just a non-random pattern, and more than simple (but seemingly purposely) complexity, it would be momentus.  If the signal was PROVEN not to have derived from humans on earth, and yet contained the mathematical description of DNA molecules, would there at some point be rejoicing, or at least discussion of the possibility that some intelligence had designed that signal, and passed that information on somehow (even if we couldn’t imagine how)?

In answering questions about the logical validity of such arguments, I have found the following articles on Wikipedia to be very useful:

List of Cognitive Biases
Types of Fallacies
List of Fallacies

Videos