Posted on 06/10/2005 8:04:42 PM PDT by CHARLITE
For a few moments there, “Intelligent Design” seemed to be making headway.
Two weeks ago, the Smithsonian announced it would screen the movie, “The Privileged Planet,” produced by the Discovery Institute, at the National Museum of History on June 23rd. The outcry in the New York Times and The Washington Post was immediate. The Smithsonian was caving to religious fundamentalists. “While `The Privileged Planet’ is an extremely sophisticated religious film, it is a religious film nevertheless,” pronounced The Post in an editorial entitled “Dissing Darwin.”
Within a week, the Smithsonian had yielded to liberal opinion. It cancelled its “co-sponsorship” of the event and gave back Discovery’s $16,000 contribution – although the movie will still be shown on schedule. It’s a fitting resolution. Thanks to the Times and Post, Discovery will now have an extra $16,000 with which to spread its heresies.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I did read the excerpt from the book, The Privileged Planet, in the March 2004 issue of The American Spectator. I don’t know whether I’d call authors Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards’ argument “religious.” “Creepy” would seem a better term.
Some of “Privileged Planet” is legitimate science. Gonzalez and Richards are addressing the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. We know there are billions of galaxies, each of them containing somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 stars. (The Spectator made a telling typographical error when it said there are “1022 visible stars.” They meant to say “1022.”) With astronomers now finding that planets are fairly common around nearby stars, the odds that there is life out there somewhere seem reasonably good.
Not so fast, say Gonzalez and Richards. Instead they approach the question from a different angle. There may be billions and billions of stars with billions of planets circling around them, but how many of these planets are right in the earth’s sweet spot – the “temperate orbit” where temperatures range only between 0o and 100o so that life can survive? How many have a liquid ocean, rather than icebergs or infernos? How many have a moon that massages the oceans so they circulate nutrients and even (so G&R claim) stabilize the parent planet in its orbit? How many suns are in the mid-range of their galaxy, where they aren’t overwhelmed by cosmic radiation or starved for lack of it?
Fair enough. These are legitimate arguments that illustrate the earth’s very unique position in relation to the solar system and the galaxy.
But then Gonzalez and Richards start talking about other strange “coincidences.” How many planets have a clear atmosphere so they can look out on the stars? they ask. How many have a moon that is exactly the size of the sun in its sky? Without that, say Gonzalez and Richards, we wouldn’t be able to see a perfect solar eclipse. “Newton was able to examine the spectrum of sunlight because of the solar eclipse,” they argue. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was only proved by observing the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse.”
All this leads them to one conclusion. Not only is our planet “designed” for life, it is also “designed” with a “purpose”—to breed a species just like ourselves capable of looking out on the rest of the universe and discovering its secrets.
Now wait a minute. Are you trying to argue that not only did God put us here on earth but also arranged the size of the sun and the moon so that Einstein’s theory of relativity could be verified? This seems a little far-fetched to me. I don’t think even firm believers in Hinduism, Christianity, or any other religion who would go quite that far.
Instead of arguing that everything on earth has been “designed” for some mysterious “purpose,” I think it’s much more instructive to look at some of God’s little errors. The one that has always struck me is the density of ice.
One thing we learn right away in elementary physics is that gas is the least dense state of matter, liquids are in the middle, and solids are the densest. That’s because the molecules are loosely associated in gases, adhere together somewhat in liquids, and are tightly bound together in solids.
There is one glaring exception, however—ice. Unlike any other element or compound, H2O is lighter as a solid—ice—it is as a liquid—water. No other substance has this property. Is this a big deal? It certainly is. It just so happens that it made the evolution of life possible.
If ice were heavier than water, it would sink to the bottom in a lake or shallow sea. Then, more water would freeze on the surface and sink again and soon the whole body of water would be frozen solid from top to bottom. Anything living in that lake or shallow sea would die. Since most life originated in water, living forms never could have survived.
Instead, ice floats. Why? There doesn’t seem to be any real explanation. I’ve always thought it was evidence that God was willing to admit His mistakes and bend the rules when it counted. When He was finished designing the fundaments of the universe – gases, liquids, and solids – He said, “Oh, darn, I forgot. This isn’t going to work.” So, He made that one exception. All solids shall be denser than their liquids except water. That way life could evolve.
Is there a better explanation? The Darwinian “anthropogenic” view now popular in scientific circles, would say, “Of course ice has to be lighter than water. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Therefore, Q.E.D.” At the other end of the room, the “Privileged Planet” people would say, “It has to be more than coincidence. Things like that don’t just happen. It’s proof of Intelligent Design.”
Personally, I prefer the explanation offered in the Book of Job. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” The ways of God are still more mysterious than any of us can comprehend.
NOTE: You’ll notice I haven’t even gotten around to mentioning Charles Darwin, who is supposed to be the target of “Intelligent Design” theory. Next week I’ll talk about whether complexity theory supports ID—as Dan Peterson argues in this month’s American Spectator— or whether it indicates something different.
William Tucker is a contributing writer for TAE Online.
Sure looks that way
Char :)
Nahh... we just have a shitty little test sample.
Maybe you where, but as for me and mine, we where made in the image of God.
Begone Smithsonian. I never knew you.
We know there are billions of galaxies, each of them containing somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 stars. (The Spectator made a telling typographical error when it said there are “1022 visible stars.” They meant to say “1022.”)
CHARLITE, the second "1022" should look like this: "1022". But what's funny is the egregious order of magnitude error that the writer, Tucker, makes. In fact, a galaxy contains, on average, something like 100 billion stars, not 100,000 or 1,000,000. So, in trying to correct the American Spectator, Tucker makes a bigger error.
As I said, pretty funny.
Personally, I prefer the explanation offered in the Book of Job. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” The ways of God are still more mysterious than any of us can comprehend.
Funny he accepts what God says in the book of Job but totally dismisses what God says in the book of Genesis...a pick & choose kind of guy.
Oh, that's easy. There's no such thing as gravity. We all know the Earth sucks to hold things down, ice just isn't as sticky.
Char :)
Yes, I knew that the 22nd power of 10 was correctly represented in the version of the article at the site. That's why I addressed the superscript remark to you (not a criticism, just pointing it out). Keep up your good posting work!
Speaking of observation, I will believe in life elsewhere when I see it. But, IAC, how likely is it on a plant unlike earth in a solar system unlike Sol's in a Galaxy unlike the Milky Way?
There is hardly a Native American legend that is not known through the writings of white men, that is through a Christian prism.
We know that given an earth like planet, with a sun like star and a moon like moon, that it is reasonable to guess that it takes over 4 billion years for technologically capable life to form.
We know the dinosaurs had 200 million years to develope technology and they failed.
We know that oceans must fall within a certain salinity and ph levels for complex life to form.
My guess is that in our galaxy, we stand a good chance of being alone and unique.
Water expands as it freezes, forming a crystal structure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.