Posted on 12/06/2016 2:28:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Hey — guess what? There's something cosmically special about us human beings after all. Even the Washington Post says so.
One of the cardinal tenets of a worldview shaped by materialism and Neo-Darwinism is a rejection of the idea that human beings are in any way special.
Instead, we're merely the result of a fortuitous accident. What's more, many adherents postulate that this accident has occurred, perhaps even often, elsewhere in the Cosmos.
So there's nothing exceptional or unique about us.
However, Howard A. Smith, an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian-Harvard Center for Astrophysics, begs to differ.
In a recent Washington Post article, Smith told readers that an "objective look at just two of the most dramatic discoveries of astronomy . . . big bang cosmology and planets around other stars," suggests that those who have relegated humanity to cosmic insignificance are, in a word, wrong.
He points to the Anthropic Principle, which holds that "the universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life." What's more, the "life" being referred to here isn't just algae and the occasional vertebrate.
Citing the work of philosopher Thomas Nagel and astrophysicist John Wheeler, who coined the term "black hole," Smith raises the possibility that "intelligent beings must somehow be the directed goal of such a curiously fine-tuned cosmos."
This raises an obvious question: How much intelligent life is out there? The answer, according to Smith, is that life "is probably rarer than previously imagined." Smith continues, "Life might be common in the very distant universe — or it might not be — and we are unlikely to know. We are probably rare — and it seems likely we will be alone for eons."
That's because of what is known as the "misanthropic principle" or, alternatively, the "Rare Earth Hypothesis." Believe it or not, the fine-tuning required to make life possible was the easy part. Because "it takes vastly more than liquid water and a pleasant environment to give birth even to simple (much less complex) life." Smith cites the work of Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod and Stephen Jay Gould, who "emphasized the extraordinary circumstances that led to intelligence on Earth."
The "combined astronomical, biological and evolutionary chances for life to form and evolve to intelligence" are infinitesimally small. Throw in the enormity of the cosmos — for instance, the Milky Way galaxy is said to be 100,000 light years across — and, as Smith says, "we probably have no one to talk to."
So, it turns out that we are far from ordinary, much less "chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet" as Stephen Hawking so depressingly put it.
Smith concludes that "humanity and our home planet, Earth, are rare and cosmically precious," and he urges us to "act accordingly." And all God's people said "Amen!"
Now, I'm neither an astrophysicist nor have I played one on television. But two years ago I made similar arguments in the Wall Street Journal. While the overall response to the piece I wrote was positive, there were still plenty of critics who took me to task for "masquerading as a scientist," which of course I was not doing. I simply cited what had been, in Smith's words, "accepted by physicists for forty-three years," and asked the obvious questions raised by what we know. Smith asked different, but no-less important questions.
As was the case two years ago, rejection of what he has to say about the astronomical unlikelihood of human existence will have little to do with science. But it will have a lot to do with a fanatical commitment to a sadly materialist and anemic worldview.
Even the media agrees?
Well, isn't God lucky to have their approval now?
The “combined astronomical, biological and evolutionary chances for life to form and evolve to intelligence” are infinitesimally small.
I give you Hollywood, California as PROOF!!
Duh ... it takes an astrophysicist to see what our ancestors recognized. What has happened to common sense?
Catholic ping!
>>One of the cardinal tenets of a worldview shaped by materialism and Neo-Darwinism is a rejection of the idea that human beings are in any way special.<<
True.
Science is silent on the issue as it is theology/philosophy and not science.
“What has happened to common sense?”
It has become less than common...
“Science is silent on the issue as it is theology/philosophy and not science.”
Not true, science takes an implicit stance on the issue based on certain assumptions that science operates based on, such as the cosmological principle.
That makes sense.
>>Not true, science takes an implicit stance on the issue based on certain assumptions that science operates based on, such as the cosmological principle.<<
No, it just evaluates the physical mechanisms of the universe, including cosmological.
Individual scientISTS may opine but science has no place to put any cosMIC questions.
All of this is just pure speculation (which is fine of course). We are not even positive if we are the only intelligent beings in the Solar System much less the only intelligent beings inhabiting the Milky Way.
What I find interesting is that Christians or atheists can each come up with a plausible explanation within their belief systems regardless if we find out we are alone or the Milky Way is teeming with intelligent life.
Universes happen.
“What has happened to common sense?”
We have arrived at the time when,
“Common sense was not a common virtue.”.
In the beginning God....
“One of the cardinal tenets of a worldview shaped by materialism and Neo-Darwinism is a rejection of the idea that human beings are in any way special. “
Quite simply not true. Most subsections of the science understand that a life sustaining planet evolving sentient life is an outlier, not in the middle of the bell curve. Ie special.
“No, it just evaluates the physical mechanisms of the universe, including cosmological.”
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. The cosmological principle is an ASSUMPTION, meaning that it was assumed by scientists prior to any evaluation of evidence, or any experimental confirmation. Similarly, descent from a common ancestor is simply ASSUMED without any evidence or experimental confirmation. Those are both philosophical assumptions, not scientific conclusions.
Scientific naturalism itself is a philosophical assumption, however, at least in that case, it can be explained as a practical one, based on the limits of scientific methodology, rather than an ideological one.
Science operates on all sorts of philosophical assumptions, because science is, in the end, simply an outgrowth of philosophy. It has additional methodology that other branches and descendants of philosophy do not use, but science is still built on a foundation of philosophy, and the assumptions that come with that provenance.
>>Scientific naturalism itself is a philosophical assumption, however, at least in that case, it can be explained as a practical one, based on the limits of scientific methodology, rather than an ideological one.<<
Science is based on observations of the natural universe, yes. That is the definition of science.
>>Science operates on all sorts of philosophical assumptions, because science is, in the end, simply an outgrowth of philosophy.<<
Again the definition of science is identifying the operation of the physical universe. It has no ability to handle any “why” questions nor anything else that cannot be measured.
That is what science IS. Period. The interpretation of that physicality is the domain of philosophy and theology.
>>All of this is just pure speculation (which is fine of course). We are not even positive if we are the only intelligent beings in the Solar System <<
Based on hiLIARy getting 50% of the vote, we can’t even be positive we are the only intelligent beings on our PLANET.
Besides distance, the other variable is time. The Human race has only been civilized for maybe 50K years (max) and only been able to communicate beyond our planet in the last hundred.
Even if intelligence was more common, I think it even more common for intelligent races to die out for one reason or another. Some get destroyed, others likely destroy themselves, others might get so advanced that they evolve into another form (which turns out to be a dead end). Still others might evolve back into the less intelligent species (e.g., embrace liberalism).
I would not be surprised in true biological intelligence has an expiration date of maybe 1M years max.
This “fine tuning” of the universe for human life is so mathematically improbable that scientists had to come up with the theory of the multiverse to explain it. In that theory there are infinite universes and it’s just lucky we are in this one.
Even if that were true, and proved to be true, I don't accept the premise that we, or any other intelligent life, would be any less special for being a common occurrence. As a measure of our "specialness," or the "specialness" of any other intelligent life, rarity is a rather juvenile benchmark IMO.
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.