anyone who post the "rare earth equation" has no scientific credibility
Before I get into the scientific validity of a book published by an academic press like Springer, I'll just start by looking at peer-reviewed journal articles on the drake equation and the rare earth equation. In 2004, Cirkvic published a paper in the journal
Astrobiology on the drake equation. The main point of the article is to point out particular flaws it has. However, Cirkvic also notes that other researchers have also found problems with this equation and have adapted/altered it. Specifically, Cirkvic cites the following works: "
other criticisms of the Drake equation, from different points of view, can be found in Walters et al. (1980), Wilson (1984), Ward and Brownlee (2000), and Walker and Cirkovic (2003, preprint)." You'll notice that Ward and Brownlee (2000) are included. The work referred to is Rare Earth and Cirkvic is noting their work on the equation (which they refer to as the "rare earth equation") along side other works of scientific scholarship in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.
Of course, these are not the only published criticisms of the drake equation. In 2010, Gleiser published a paper in the International Journal of Modern Physics and along side other alterations of the Drake equation he argued were necessary, he too cites the "rare earth equation" alteration work done by Ward and Brownlee. He also notes that "it is perfectly plausible that a universe satisfying all of these conditions [which would allow "prebiotic" life rather than "complex, multicellular life"] will be devoid of any form of complex life"
Finally, another paper from the International Journal of Astrobiology was published in 2009, written by Forgan. Forgan also states that the Drake equation "suffers from some key weaknesses" including returning oposite results. Forgan also writes, after mentioning the Fermi Paradox, that "The power of this question, along with the enormous chain of events required for intelligent observers to exist on Earth to pose it, has lead many to the conclusion that the conditions for life to flourish are rare, possibily unique to Earth." Forgan cites Ward and Brownlee here too, because, like so many other scholars who publish in peer-reviewed journals, Forgan knows that one doesn't simply write off a book because it is a book, as a whole lot of scholarship comes from academic presses like Springer.
Rare Earth, the book in which the rare earth equation appeared, was written by two scientists, one an expert in astrobiology and the other a geologist and paleontologist and published by Springer-Verlag. Now, If you don't read a lot of journals, monographs, or other technical books designed for specialists in the areas of mathematics and science, you may not be familiar with the company. They are, however, one of the largest and most respected publishers of scientific and mathematical journals, books, edited volumes, etc.
You haven't read the work, nor the other work criticising or altering the drake equation. But you have the audicity to write
anyone who post the "rare earth equation" has no scientific credibility
. I just gave you three different papers from peer-reviewed journals which either cite Ward and Brownlee's work on the rare earth equation or the book itself.
So you tell me: If a peer-reviewed journal considers a paper which builds on or validates the work Ward and Brownlee did, including their "rare earth equation," what basis do you have for your statement?
You have also posted creationist and tried to pass them off as having a valid scientific stance, while obviously backing a theistic view.
I noted one book which I specifically stated went beyond the science. So nice try.
and you have posted a few opinions trying to pass them off as mainstream.
Let's look at this quote from the journal article again: "The power of this question, along with the enormous chain of events required for intelligent observers to exist on Earth to pose it,
has lead many to the conclusion that the conditions for life to flourish are rare, possibily unique to Earth."
Does it say "a few conclude" or "many?"
You ignore the Copernican principle, and the Mediocrituy principle, and then denounce the Drake equation and expect us to follow your ideology.
And then I followed that up by citing three different peer-reviewed articles which criticize it as well. That is in addition to the other scholarship I already cited. But you continue to rely on
ad hominem attacks and rhetoric.
You also ignore the fact that science is currently looking for ET directly and indirectly.
I don't ignore it at all. I specifically noted that this has now become a new field- astrobiology. Nor did I ever say that most scientists agree with scientiests like Ward and Brownlee. I said that there were plenty of scientists who DO think that something like the rare earth hypothesis or anthropic principle or any name you want to call the idea that extraterrestrial life, or complex extraterrestrial life, is incredibly improbable.
The world's most brilliant minds follow my view, while you hold a narrow theistic view
Intestingly enough, an article in
Science titled "Deities for Atheists" states:
"My analysis of SETI pioneers found that most were once religious but became either atheists or agnostics as adults. Radio astronomer Frank Drake—creator of the canonical “Drake Equation” for estimating the number of ETIs inhabiting the galaxy—was raised Baptist and later reflected: “A strong influence on me, and I think on a lot of SETI people, was the extensive exposure to fundamentalist religion”. Drake has suggested that “immortality may be quite common among extraterrestrials”. Carl Sagan—who did more than anyone to conventionalize SETI—was raised Jewish and became agnostic. He wrote of SETI’s importance, “It touches deeply into myth, folklore, religion, mythology; and every human culture in some way or another has wondered about that type of question”. ETIs are secular gods. Deities for atheists."
Also, what "brilliant minds" are you comparing to the supporters of the view I have described? You don't know who supports it. You haven't read any of the scholarship. You've made error after error after error, everything from thinking that an astrophysicist isn't qualified to talk about astrobiology to your remark about the rare earth equation being so unscientific despite being published by and academic press and cited in academic journals.
