Your pulling creatioist tactics after admitting your in that camp.
I am agnostic. I don't believe in a creator behind the universe. Neither do many scientists who believe that life elsewhere is extremely unlikely. You are simply resorting to an
ad hominem attack because while I have scientific sources to back up my claims, you have yet to reference a single academic publication showing that that the "rare earth" hypothesis or views similar to it are "pseudoscience."
I have already supplied material showing you are in the minority position.
You linked to wikipedia! That's your basis for understanding the scientific community? So you are admitting you don't actually READ the actual scientific publications? And nowhere in
anything that you cited does an actual scientist in an academic source refer to the "rare earth" and similar positions as "pseudoscience."
The National Research Council 2007 publication on life on other planets (National Academies Press) certainly disagrees with the views like the "rare earth hypothesis." Yet they acknowledge "other scientists" who view the probability that organisms will "spontaneously" emerge elsewhere on the universe is "infinitesimal."
They council also cites Ward & Brownlee's book
Rare Earth in their section on water. So even though they completely disagree, they don't disregard views like the rare earth hypothesis or consider them "pseudoscience."
You post articles like they are mainstream
And once again, one what do you base your view of what is "mainstream?"
As scientists Koerner & Levay put it in their book (Oxford University Press, 2000) on the quest for extraterrestrial life (which argues
against "rare earth" type views) "the current climate in astrobiology resembles a brainstorming session, with many discordant voices going at it hammer and tongs,
more than it does an orderly expression of consensus."
So what "mainstream" are you even talking about?
while ignoring the fact that creationist are scientist and allowed a opinion.
Ignoring to what extent one can be a scientist and at the same time hold unscientific views, how many of those I cited are creationists? 1? As for the connection between theism, religion, and life outside the planet, it appears as if many of those who believe in life on other planets do so for reasons of faith, religion, etc.
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."
Norman Glendenning, in his book on astrology (World Scientific, 2007), gives the example of Nicolaus of Cusa, who believed "on religious grounds- that a god who had created our earth with life on it would surely not limit himself to one inhabited planet."
but taking these right wing pseudoscientific views and passing them off as mainstream majority is just plain wrong.
There you go again: "pseudoscientific." And now you have added "right wing." C. D. Impey, in an published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal
Vistas in Astronomy, writes that while astronomers and physicists are more apt to believe that life elsewhere in the universe is probable, "biologists and paleontologists are accustomed to the capricious and irregular process of evolution by natural selection. Social and life scientists often argue that evolution of advanced species with technology might well be unique to earth." I've cited scientific journals, academic volumes, all written by or consisting of papers written by credited scientists in areas as diverse as astrophysics and paleobiology, all who accept something similar to the "rare earth hypothesis."
You quoted wikipedia.
There is no evidence at all that stands up for the rare earth view.
And yet there exists a great deal of scientific literature stating otherwise. And so far, your only response has been
ad hominem attacks and linking to wikipedea. No discussion of the actual literature.
Its not even really a hypothesis. since it is not a theory
WHAT!? This doesn't even make sense. You do know enough about science to know that a hypothesis and a theory aren't the same, right? So why can't something be a hypothesis if it isn't a theory?
Again, I ask you to provide evidence from an academic source (a peer-reviewed journal article, a book, monograph, or volume published by an academic press, or conference proceedings from an academic committee) which states that those who view the possibility of life (or intelligent life) elsewhere in the universe are all "pseudoscientists," "creationists," "quacks" or any of the other insults you have used to describe them.
And just to be clear, I'm not asking for scientific publications which disagree with "rare earth" type views. I've read them. I'm asking for scientific publications which support your insulting dismissal of the scientists I have cited and views similar to the "rare earth" as "pseudoscience."
If you can't provide anything other than insults, rhetoric, and links to wikipedia which don't even support your accusation of "pseudoscience," then you have no basis for dismissing the peer-reviewed, academic publications of scientists who accept something like the "rare earth" view.
