It’s not solid science.
NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, and the British Royal Society, and universities around the world all disagree with you.
Hypothesis: Extraterrestrial intelligence exists.
Prediction: Radio signals will exhibit regular patterns.
Wrong on both counts. The working hypothesis is that life emerged elsewhere in the cosmos besides earth. The prediction is that in some of those instances of life, advanced civilizations will arise, exhibiting an advanced intelligence which can be detected from earth.
But they cannot directly detect intelligence from billions miles away, so they use an unambiguous correlate of intelligence – radio signals – and they search for those in the cosmic radio spectrum. And it is not “regular patterns” they look for; it is specifically narrow band radio-signals. They look for narrow-band radio signals because it is our universal experience that narrow-band radio signals are only produced by radio transmitters, and by no other means. The ability to produce narrow-band radio signals therefore serves as the operational definition of intelligence in a test of the prediction.
Therefore, if they receive an extraterrestrial narrow-band radio signal, they will then be empirically justified in inferring the existence of a radio transmitter, which in turn, allows them to infer an act of intelligence in the construction of that transmitter. The ability to infer the predicted intelligence from the presence of narrow-band radio signals supports the hypothesis that life emerged elsewhere in the cosmos.
This scenario is replicated in the test for intelligence at the origin of life. The working hypothesis is that life is the product of intelligence. The prediction is that an act of intelligence can be detected in the origin of the living cell.
But we cannot directly detect intelligence from billions of years in the past, so we use an unambiguous correlate of intelligence – semiotic memory – and we search for that in the organization of the cell. And it is not merely semiotic memory, but a very specific type of memory, one that uses spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code. We look for this because it is our universal experience that spatially-oriented memory and reading frame codes are only produced by intelligence, and by no other means. The ability to produce spatially oriented representations and a reading frame code therefore serves as the operational definition of intelligence in a test of the prediction.
Therefore, if we find a semiotic system using spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code, we will then be empirically justified in inferring an act of intelligence. The ability to infer the predicted intelligence from the detection of this specific type of semiotic memory supports the hypothesis that life was the product of intelligence.
Of course, all of this is directly interpretable from the text on the linked page, but I understand when people are threatened by new information, we often seek solace in any number of defensive mechanisms. In science, as in some other concerns, people often look for reasons (such as rules violations) to ignore the new information being presented.
There are also those who will float these types of questions merely because they are interested in maintaining proper procedure, but you can virtually always tell the difference between that and those responding in a defensive strategy. First, the tone is entirely different, but most importantly, those who are merely dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s can be satisfied and move on, whereas the defensive strategists a) can never be satisfied, and b) never engage the actual evidence.