What's more believable; Aliens or God?

[outhouse]

found this as well on our rare earth creationist friends


Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe / Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee

A news item in the November/December 2001 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 25, No. 6) states that “David Darling, an astronomer who is a critic of the Rare Earth hypothesis, has revealed that one of the strongest influences on the authors, a young [...] astronomer who they acknowledge in their preface 'changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones', has a hidden, Earth-is-unique agenda motivated by strong 'itelligent design' religious views.” That astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez, published several articles in Connections, a quarterly newsletter published by Reasons to Believe, Inc. In one of these articles, co-authored with the creationist scientist Hugh Ross, Gonzalez writes: “The fact that the Sun's location is fine-tuned to permit the possibility of life [...] powerfully suggests divine design.”

Darling published these findings, along with a detailed point-by-point scientific critique of the Rare Earth hypothesis, in his book Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology. Skeptical Inquirer quotes Darling as saying, “What matters is not whether there's anything unusual about the Earth; there's going to be something idiosyncratic about every planet in space. What matters is whether any of Earth's circumstances are not only unusual but also essential for complex life. So far we've seen nothing to suggest there is.”


There youve been busted passing off ceationist pseudoscience as valid science

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

yes alot of words for a hypothesis.

not even a theory

its just a guess.

Yes, all talk about life on other planets is a matter of educated guessing. The differences between those who view life (or intelligent life) on other planets as likely versus those who view it as unlikely revolves around differing views on the conditions necessary for life, the complexity of spontaneous generation of organisms, and the probability that, even given such organisms did originate elsewhere, they would evolve at all, let alone evolve into complex life. However, no one knows the answers to any of these questions, as we can't even answer how life began on this planet yet. There are a lot of hypotheses, or educated guesses.

I found this interesting

I find it interesting that you cited one scientist repeatedly in various posts (Neil Tyson) who is an astrophycist, yet elsewhere you claim that an astrophysist is not qualified to talk about this issue and it is "idiotic" think they should.

So which is it? Because according to you, your belief that that Neil Tyson is qualified to disuss this issue is idiotic. Either you believe you are an idiot, or you lack even a basic knowledge of astrobiology (as one of the most basic aspects of any field of research is knowing what kinds of specialists are in the field).

I should also add that the "Rare Earth" idea was contributed to by Guillermo Gonzalez, a known creationist astronomer and ID proponent.

You like wikipedia so much: Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Among contemporary scientists—physicists and biologists—about 40% held strong religious beliefs in 1997, which closely matched those of a similar 1916 poll.[66][90]
According to a 1996 survey of United States scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality.[92] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933."



Also, the "rare earth hypothesis" was not "contributed to" by Gonzalez. He took that idea and used it to support a non-scientific idea by going further. Second, the fact that a scientist can believe in non-scientific ideas doesn't negate their scientific work. That's why Gonzalez's book was not published by an academic press, but his scientific work was. Again, plenty of leading scientists across fields believe in God, deism, theism, christianity, etc. These are not scientific ideas, but only because there is a lack of evidence for them. Young Earth Creationism, and similar ideas, are a different matter. There is a massive amount of scientific evidence that these views are incorrect.

He clearly had an ulterior motive in trying to establish that Earth is unique that was not altogether a scientific one

The same applies to atheists/agnostics who believe in extraterrestrial life:

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."​

​

Everyone has biases. However, fields within science try to counter this bias by ensuring that the publication of scholarship doesn't just rely on the author's or authors' credentials. That's why they rely on academic publishers.

 

[outhouse]

Theres nothing wrong at all with having religion or beliefs and being a scientist.

But when one passes off creation in sheeps clothing to promote their religious views as valid science. its despicable.


Its exactly what ID has done with creationism, and in turn exactly what and how rare earth hypothesis has done. Underhanded attempts to use science to justify myths

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

found this as well on our rare earth creationist friends


Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe / Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee

A news item in the November/December 2001 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 25, No. 6) states that “David Darling, an astronomer who is a critic of the Rare Earth hypothesis,
There youve been busted passing off ceationist pseudoscience as valid science

My, you just continue to dig your own grave, don't you? Let me guess: not only did you not read the article in the Skeptical Inquirer (which isn't a scientific journal), nor have you read David Darling's book, have you? I own his book and I just read the article you cite. It states:

"In his chapter on the Ward and Brownlee book, Darling acknowledges that it has enlivened debate about exobiology within the scientific community-he describes the scientific reaction as mixed-- while being embraced by the religious right as vindication of their belief in the special nature of the Earth."

In other words, even David Darling disagrees with your view on the "rare earth hypothesis" and acknowledges that it has been discussed (with mixed results) in the scientific community, according to the article you cite.

Also, in his book, David Darling states: "Reaction to the book among scientists has been mixed." He notes the highly enthusiastic reaction of Geoff Marcy, and the "cooler" reaction of others:

"In his review of the book for Science, NASA Ames astrobiologiest Chris McKay describes the authors as "[making] the case (if not always convincingly) that the situation on our Earth is optimal for the development of complex life." He ads, "We have only one example of life" and "the assessment of [the] probability" for the development of life "is uncertain at best." A similar point is made by the physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western University, writing in Physics Today:

"Ward and Brownlee summarize clearly the developments over the past few decades that reveal the complexity of the evolution of advanced life on Earth. However, demonstrating the complexity of a process is different from demonstrating that the end result is ratre...It is undeniable that the specific route to modern terrestrial life-forms is remarkably complex and probably has a small absolute probability. But the same can be said for the series of events that led me to my computer this evening."

So, thank you, as you just cited an article which disagrees with your view and a book which does so as well. David Darling certainly disagrees with the views similar to the "rare earth hypothesis" and with the conclusions of the book Rare Earth. However, not only does he acknowledge it as a scientific work, he even acknowledges that at least some of the scientific community accepted it has accurate (it's hard to say what "mixed" means in terms of how many were mainly for or mainly against). He specifically seperates the work in that chapter (chapter 6), from the work of others like Guillermo Gonzalez, whom he claims are trying to use that argument to promost religious views.

So
1) The article you cite specifically states that Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth is a part of scholarly scientific debate and
2) The book the article refers to actually refers to scientists who either enthusiastically support the conclusions of the book or are just "cooler" about it, but David Darling certainly considers Rare Earth to be a scientific work and to be part of scientific research on astrobiology.

Next time, try reading your sources.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, now that your latest "evidence" that views like those in Rare Earth are "pseudoscience" actually shows the exact opposite, as both the article and the author it discusses acknowledge the scientific validity of the book (even though David Darling certainly disagrees with its conclusions), and you have still not produced a single publication by an academic press or journal stating that the idea that life on earth is unique is "pseudoscience" and that scientists who believe this are "quacks," how about that apology?

You've insulted me and my sources, but one the one hand you have (more than once) refered to the opinion astrophysicist Neil Tyson while at the same time saying that he is not qualified to make statements about this and it is idiotic to think he should. You posted an article about an author and book which you claimed as evidence that I've

been busted passing off ceationist pseudoscience as valid science

when in fact both the article and the author refer to Rare Earth as a valid work of science. You continue to refuse to produce any scientific publications supporting your insulting dismissals of "pseudoscience" and your attacks on me. You continue to ignore every academic publication I've cited.

So, if you can't provide something from an academic, scholarly publication which states Rare Earth and similar publications in journals or by academic publishers are
"pseudoscience," or simply apologize for insulting me.

I've tried to be fair here. You called it "idiotic" when I cited an astrophysicist and then did the same, but I haven't called you the same. Nor have I accused you of dishonesty or any other this other insults you threw at me, despite the fact that your own sources disagree with you. It's seems fair to ask that you either produce some actual scholarship which supports your insulting dismissal, or simply apologize, or at least just say that you didn't really know enough about the topic to render an opinion.

 

[outhouse]

I've tried to be fair here.

you have been trying to pass off creationist views supporting ID that in turn, influenced the rare earth hypothesis.


lets look at some real reviews of Davids work

not a biased view


Amazon.com: Life Everywhere (9780465015641): David Darling: Books



The science in Life Everywhere is solid, and the treatment of opposing theories is open and even-handed, with the exception of the Rare Earth theory which, according to Dr. Darling, is a theory based more on theological conservatism than on scientific fact.

this book is an excellent introduction to astrobiology. Having reviewed Rare Earth by Ward et al., and being unaware of the surrounding debate behind the book, I recommend this rejoinder as highly useful dialectic to put the full context of the argument in perspective,



Chapter 6 pretty well demolishes Rare Earth and exposes its surprising creationist roots.

He goes on to make the case for a universe with abundant life. But along the way he presents a blistering critique of Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000) by Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, in which it is argued that the circumstances that allow life are rare and that those circumstances as seen on earth are unlikely to be replicated anywhere else. Darling not only utterly destroys their argument, point by point, but even shows that part of the reason that it was advanced was because they were under the influence of one Guillermo Gonzalez, professor of astronomy at the University of Washington, who is also a creationist with the usual supernatural agenda.

 

[outhouse]

Considering there are close to 5 stars for every grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.


To state there is no intelligent life out there, is to walk up to a ocean with a empty glass and fill it with sea water and then claim there are no whales because none are in the glass.




You still have not shown mainstream science accepts your narrow view as a whole despite your verbal dancing skills

 

[outhouse]

when I cited an astrophysicist

exactly, you cited a creationist astrophysicist, who co-authored a book influenced by another creationist.


The good thing is the only place creationist can reside in any science is in the field of guessing where there work cannot be tested.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Considering there are close to 5 stars for every grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.


To state there is no intelligent life out there, is to walk up to a ocean with a empty glass and fill it with sea water and then claim there are no whales because none are in the glass.

Have you studied probability theory and/or statistics? In order to make a claim about how "probable" X outcome is you need to know the probability space. In this case, you would need to know not just how many planets there are, but what conditions are necessary for any life (let alone intelligent life) and how many planets fulfill those conditions. As has been pointed out for decades, and in a 2012 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Spiegel and Turner, the view that life is probable, let alone likely, is based on a faulty analysis of probability due to 1) inaccurate assumptions and 2) probability assignments to what are actually unknowns.

Basically, your analogy above, while poetic, has no basis in mathematics.

You still have not shown mainstream science accepts your narrow view as a whole despite your verbal dancing skills

That's because there is no "consensus" or "mainstream" view on this issue, as I pointed out:

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?...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."

 

[outhouse]

That's because there is no "consensus" or "mainstream" view on this issue, as I pointed out:

False again

here im pointing out that your view is the opposite of widely accepted.

dont like the source and you have backed information you can change it. Most creationist fail at this kind of attempt

Rare Earth hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others

 

[outhouse]

Basically, your analogy above, while poetic, has no basis in mathematics.

It is not only backed by math, its also backed by the majority of scientist, reason, logic, and all avalible knowledge at hand.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

False again

here im pointing out that your view is the opposite of widely accepted.

Yes. You are pointing it out. But you also pointed out that guys like Frank Drake and Carl Sagan aren't qualified to discuss this issue because they aren't biologists and anybody who thinks they should is an idiot.

You also referred to an article about a book and an author who clearly stated that Rare Earth is a scientific work, accepted by the scientific community as such, and with plenty of support by scientist. However, as you haven't read the book and didn't read the article, you thought it supported your view. I showed you it did the opposite.

dont like the source and you have backed information you can change it. Most creationist fail at this kind of attempt

I don't know what this means. What I do know is that you are talking about scientific opinion, but so far you haven't cited a single scientific journal, scientific monograph, or any other work published by an academic press. You have linked to a bunch of websites, and one of the most recent ones contradicted your own view, as the author and book it concerned disagrees with your view that the "rare earth hypothesis" is pseudoscience."

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others

I can cite all sorts of websites too. Instead, I've relied on scientific publications (journals, academic publishers, etc.). Why? Because that's what constitutes the state of science in any field. In fact, the article you didn't bother to read but linked to on David Darling's book specifically states that reactions to the "rare earth" views are mixed, and include notable scientists who support it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The good thing is the only place creationist can reside in any science is in the field of guessing where there work cannot be tested.

Like biology or genetics? Francis S. Collins is one of the world's leading geneticists.

According to his bio on the National Institutes of Heath website:
"Dr. Collins is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in April 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book. He served as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH from 1993-2008.
Before coming to the NIH, Dr. Collins was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Michigan. He is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November 2007, and received the National Medal of Science in 2009."

Yet he believes in god and writes popular books like The Language of God. That didn't prevent him from being one of the most important contributors to the understanding of human genetics in the world.

 

[outhouse]

But you also pointed out that guys like Frank Drake and Carl Sagan aren't qualified to discuss this issue because they aren't biologists and anybody who thinks they should is an idiot.

False again

and taking my statements out of context.

You posted creationist who promote pseudoscience

You also referred to an article about a book and an author who clearly stated that Rare Earth is a scientific work, accepted by the scientific community as such, and with plenty of support by scientist.

False again

I showed you your authors creationist motives were uncovered in Davids book

I don't know what this means

if the wiki information is false, you can change it if you have valid information.

But this wiki information is not only not false it is right under its definition

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity (also called the Copernican principle), advocated by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake

David Darling's book specifically states

that a creationist influenced it


while wiki states one of the authors is a creationist

 

[outhouse]

Like biology or genetics? Francis S. Collins is one of the world's leading geneticists.

According to his bio on the National Institutes of Heath website:
"Dr. Collins is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in April 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book. He served as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH from 1993-2008.
Before coming to the NIH, Dr. Collins was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Michigan. He is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November 2007, and received the National Medal of Science in 2009."

Yet he believes in god and writes popular books like The Language of God. That didn't prevent him from being one of the most important contributors to the understanding of human genetics in the world.

Here you are confusing belief in religion and science cannot go hand in hand

while I already stated I accept scientist that are religious.

Religion doesnt have anything to do with how well a scientist does his job

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

lets look at some real reviews of Davids work

not a biased view

I didn't "review" his work. I quoted him. Because I actually have his book, and I actually read it.

The science in Life Everywhere is solid, and the treatment of opposing theories is open and even-handed, with the exception of the Rare Earth theory which, according to Dr. Darling, is a theory based more on theological conservatism than on scientific fact.

this book is an excellent introduction to astrobiology. Having reviewed Rare Earth by Ward et al., and being unaware of the surrounding debate behind the book, I recommend this rejoinder as highly useful dialectic to put the full context of the argument in perspective,

Which is contrary to what D. Darling states in his book. I quoted it. He specifically states (p. 92) that scientists have supported all or part of Rare Earth and that it is a work of science.

Chapter 6 pretty well demolishes Rare Earth and exposes its surprising creationist roots.

It presents an alternate view. And their continue to be scientific publications supporting the view that life on earth is almost certainly unique, and those that disagree.

However, most importantly, David Darling specifically states that Rare Earth is an important scientific publication.

 

[outhouse]

David Darling specifically states that Rare Earth is an important scientific publication

after or before he claims the work to be influenced by creationist


while we know a creationist is a co author, the other may be up for debate.



To bad you cannot refute this

The rare earth hypothesis is the contrary of the widely accepted principle of mediocrity

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Here you are confusing belief in religion and science cannot go hand in hand

while I already stated I accept scientist that are religious.

Religion doesnt have anything to do with how well a scientist does his job

So why have you equated Rare Earth and those who hold similar views as "pseudoscientists," "creationists," and "quacks?" Had you actually read chapter 6 of Darling's book, you'd know that he argues that the book is widely supported by theists. He never accuses them of being "pseudoscientists" or "creationists" and he acknowledges that their book is a work of science supported by other scientists apart from religious groups. But you not only didn't read the book, you didn't even read the article you referred to which cited it.

Again, I've cited a number of publications which are accepted by the scientific community as science. They are published by scientific journals or academic presses. You've written them off and insulted both the authors, their work, and me in the process.

You have defended your insults by refering to scientists like Drake who you have also said are unqualified to have an opinion and only an idiot would say otherwise, by linking to wikipedia and other websites (some of which, as it turns out, actually don't support you at all), and consistently refusing to support you claims about "mainstream science" and what constitutes "pseudoscience" with any reference to academic publications.

Again, it seems only fair that you either apologize for the insults. or produce some actual academic publication (rather than random amazon reviews or other websites), which supports your insults.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

after or before he claims the work to be influenced by creationist

He doesn't. He claims their work influenced other creationists.

while we know a creationist is a co author, the other may be up for debate.

Which author?

To bad you cannot refute this

I can. You quote an wiki page anybody can edit and use that to support your view of what scientists "widely accept." Meanwhile, I've quoted actual scientists publishing actual academic works:

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?...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."

So you can trust wikipedia all you want, but according to scientists, there isn't any consensus or "mainstream" view.

 

[outhouse]

Considering there are close to 5 stars for every grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.


To state there is no intelligent life out there, is to walk up to a ocean with a empty glass and fill it with sea water and then claim there are no whales because none are in the glass.




You still have not shown mainstream science accepts your narrow view as a whole despite your verbal dancing skills

why cant you refute the statement??


you change the conversation and run, but not refute.



what makes the earth so rare, that intelligent life might not be out there.??

because every part of the ReT has been debunked by Dr Darling

the fact we are here dictates, it happens in the universe. Add the fact we cannot explore to discount it, OPENS the possibility for LIFE to exist somewhere else.

You alse ignore man has a bad habit of creating deities at will, and how the god concept has evolved with the ever changing cultures.