Open letter by Guillermo Gonzalez
esw...@yahoo.com
Richards, was published, evoking both enthusiastic and negative
reactions from a number of leading scientists. The argument covers
everything from the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to the
initial conditions of the Big Bang; from our host star and planetary
neighbors to our atmosphere and moon. Our conclusion? The universe is
designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery.
"The argument is falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about
extrasolar planets, our galaxy, and the larger universe flowing in over
the next two decades thanks to missions like Gaia and Kepler...
"Recently a documentary was released based on the book. The
sixty-minute documentary covers the SETI debate, astrobiology, and
evidence of purpose in astronomy and physics. It includes interviews
with such scientists as Robert Jastrow, Seth Shostak, Donald Brownlee
and Paul Davies. From the publicity generated by the book and film,
I've had a number of civil and stimulating conversations with fellow
scientists about our thesis that a correlation exists between life and
discovery.
"A few scientists and organizations, however, have preferred ridicule
over engagement. Things got really nasty after a scheduled premiere of
the documentary was announced at the National Museum of Natural History
for June 23rd. Suddenly Internet attack squads were activated, and the
mainstream media took notice. As is customary in media stories dealing
with ID, initial reports were almost completely ignorant of the book
and the film. Articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times,
for instance, said that The Privileged Planet took aim at Darwin. But
neither the book nor the film even treat biological evolution and,
moreover, argue from standard cosmic evolutionary models."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/168#more-168
rich hammett
> "The argument is falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about
> extrasolar planets, our galaxy, and the larger universe flowing in over
> the next two decades thanks to missions like Gaia and Kepler...
I doubt this. Did he give an example of how it could
be falsified? It would take very little mental gymnastics
to deal with this new data, if they've already managed to
make this determination based on everything currently
available.
> "A few scientists and organizations, however, have preferred ridicule
> over engagement. Things got really nasty after a scheduled premiere of
> the documentary was announced at the National Museum of Natural History
> for June 23rd. Suddenly Internet attack squads were activated, and the
> mainstream media took notice. As is customary in media stories dealing
> with ID, initial reports were almost completely ignorant of the book
> and the film. Articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times,
> for instance, said that The Privileged Planet took aim at Darwin. But
> neither the book nor the film even treat biological evolution and,
> moreover, argue from standard cosmic evolutionary models."
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/168#more-168
Why am I skeptical of ANYTHING from the Discovery Liars Institute.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Estragon: People are bloody ignorant apes.
scooter
esw...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "In March 2004 The Privileged Planet, which I co-authored with Jay
> Richards, was published, evoking both enthusiastic and negative
> reactions from a number of leading scientists. The argument covers
> everything from the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to the
> initial conditions of the Big Bang; from our host star and planetary
> neighbors to our atmosphere and moon. Our conclusion? The universe is
> designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery.
The universe may be suitable for life and discovery, but to say it is
"designed" for them is way beyond your means.
>
> "The argument is falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about
> extrasolar planets, our galaxy, and the larger universe flowing in over
> the next two decades thanks to missions like Gaia and Kepler...
What argument is falsifiable? You really ought to explain yourself
instead of obfuscating by using ambiguous pronoun references.
>
> "Recently a documentary was released based on the book. The
> sixty-minute documentary covers the SETI debate, astrobiology, and
> evidence of purpose in astronomy and physics. It includes interviews
> with such scientists as Robert Jastrow, Seth Shostak, Donald Brownlee
> and Paul Davies. From the publicity generated by the book and film,
> I've had a number of civil and stimulating conversations with fellow
> scientists about our thesis that a correlation exists between life and
> discovery.
If there is a correlation then go ahaed and show us the chi squred and
the margin of error ect.
<snipping rest of whining about scientists>
Bob
>"In March 2004 The Privileged Planet, which I co-authored with Jay
>Richards, was published, evoking both enthusiastic and negative
>reactions from a number of leading scientists. The argument covers
>everything from the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to the
>initial conditions of the Big Bang; from our host star and planetary
>neighbors to our atmosphere and moon. Our conclusion? The universe is
>designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery.
>
except, of course, for biology. there, 'god did it' rules, and science
need not apply.
>"The argument is falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about
>extrasolar planets, our galaxy, and the larger universe flowing in over
>the next two decades thanks to missions like Gaia and Kepler...
ID says nothing about HOW things happened beyond 'god did it'. since
that can explain anything, it's not science.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field