An interesting article was forwarded to me recently by Stan Jantz regarding the newly built SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescope funded to the tune of $30 million by Microsoft. The head researcher, Rick Forster, is working on this project in collaboration with UC Berkeley, which in case you don’t know, is one of the leading research institutions in the world. Why the huge investment of time, money and resources? Because, according to Forster, "It's nuts to think we're alone. It's just a matter of looking in the right direction, at the right time, at the right frequency, with the right algorithm.” Just to recap, a leading scientist receives $30 million, notoriety and accolades for having a hunch. Important to note that at this point, no substantial evidence whatsoever has been found to indicate that there’s life out there in the great beyond, and nothing suggests that anyone out there is trying to dial in on planet earth. But, because some scientists have a hunch, let’s all go and hitch our wagons to the next great prize. Frankly, I’m not necessarily opposed to this philosophy of “let’s check it out and see what happens.” Some great and powerful discoveries have been made in this very way. My real question is why don’t the same rules and respect apply to the science of intelligent design?

 

If we’re willing to give respect and the benefit of the doubt to a bunch of scientists who saw Bugs Bunny battling Marvin the Martian and thought there was some legitimacy to the whole concept, why are intelligent design scientists seen as the pariahs and laughing stock of the scientific world? If the rules of the game are that intelligent design has no legitimacy to be explored and studied because it’s founded on things we’ve never seen, then I want a recall on the $30 million that Microsoft put forth for the “Aliens are Everywhere” project. Do you know how many copies of Windows we needed to buy to make this project a reality? Also worth mentioning is the fact that SETI was funded by taxpayer dollars to the tune of $12 million+ per year through the mid-1990s, and when funding was cut, a laundry list of top scientists, including prominent evolutionist and hostile opponent of Intelligent Design Stephen Jay Gould signed a petition to keep this funding alive.

 

Once again, to reiterate that I am not picking on this group, there is a whole pile of research that could fit the same mold. Maybe one day they’ll find some gentle, large headed character out there that rides a bike and loves Reese’s Pieces. (You know, they should make a movie about that!). It simply seems that if we’re going to apply a standard that science is only good and legitimate if it can test the here and now in some tangible manner, then let’s apply the standard across the board. However, if we believe that science sometimes takes on the form of exploring some things that go beyond this realm, then let’s apply that to everyone, everywhere at all times. It’s unfortunate and rather hypocritical to think that everyone gets a free pass except for the “Christian crazies” who poison the waters of science with their religion. It seems rather odd that one group of “faith based dreamers” represents the elite, published and tenured faculty at Harvard, UC Berkeley and the like, while another group has become the outcasts of the scientific society.