Our Special, Privileged Place in the Universe

-
The following is a list of things required in order to maintain/ sustain complex life- (outside of the required chemical processes at the cellular level). The point of the list is to show how very incredibly lucky we are. We won the cosmic lottery! Or is there a purpose for our existence? Does Occam’s Razor really favor one designed universe over multiple chance collisions & multiple lucky events? Does science really favor the chance collisions & multiple lucky events scenario? (also mixed in are the ways the factors aid in scientific discovery)

Intelligent Design vs. it just happened- You decide.

Factors for complex life:

1. Liquid water
a. Enough surface water to help regulate the planet’s temperature
b. Good solvent
c. Transports minerals
d. The presence of liquid water means the planet is in the habitable zone of it’s local star (Sun)
e. The presence of liquid water defines the CHZ (Circumstellar Habitable Zone. The CHZ of our solar system lies between Venus & Mars. Some scientists have narrowed it to:
-If the Earth were 5% closer to the Sun – too hot, no liquid water
-If the Earth were 20% father away from the Sun- too cold carbon dioxide would build up
f. less dense as a solid than as a liquid

2. Carbon based
a. Great bonding affinities
b. Allows for complex macro-molecules

3. Terrestrial planet
a. Crust thin/ thick and pliable enough to allow for plate tectonics
b. Recycling of minerals
c. Plate tectonics means the crust is sitting on an active core
d. Must retain enough heat for convection, i.e. keep the core liquid
e. Convection mixes the elements & shapes the continents
f. Active iron core is required to generate a protective magnetic field
g. Magnetic field has to be strong enough to withstand the solar winds
h. Must provide protection from radiation

4. Oxygen atmosphere
a. Our oxygen/ nitrogen mix is good
b. Clear- allows for good viewing
c. Ours is <1% of planet’s diameter d. Allows in the right kind of light for viewing 5. Stable circular orbit

6. Large Moon (see also Gonzalez, G., “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20) (J. Laskar et al., “Stabilization of the Earth’s Obliquity by the Moon,” Nature 361 (1993): 615-17)
a. Our Moon is ¼ the size of Earth
b. Stabilizes the Earth’s axis of rotation
c. Gives our oceans a required tidal action
d. Just so happens that our Moon is 400x smaller than the Sun, which is 400x farther away
e. Both with a very circular shape
f. Allows for perfect solar eclipses
g. Confirmed Einstein’s prediction with the 1919 solar eclipse (gravity bends light) when scientists photographed the Stars behind it. We could have only made that discovery during a total solar eclipse.
h. Light spectrum
i. Observing & studying the Sun’s chromosphere is made possible

7. Gas Giants
a. Protection from intruding cosmic debris
b. Great for observing & scientific discovery

8. Sun- Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star-
a. If it were smaller the habitable zone would shrink and any planets in that zone would be locked into a synchronous orbit (rotation = revolution) as our Moon is with us
b. Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
c. Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
d. 1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
e. Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
f. 50% of those are in binary systems
g. Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone


9. Location in the galaxy- Galactic Habitable Zone
a. We are between spiral arms
b. Perfect for viewing
c. Not a lot of activity
d. Not too close to the violent and very active center
e. More radiation near the center
Neighbors
Not a good viewing platform from which to discover
Not so far away where the heavy elements are scarce

10. Fine-tuning
a. Laws of Nature
b. Laws apply here also apply anywhere
c. Constants that are independent of those laws

Summary:

Within the Galactic Habitable Zone

Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone

Liquid water

Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star

Protected by gas giants

Nearly circular orbit-

Oxygen rich

Correct mass

Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation

Moderate rate of rotation

Terrestrial planet

Ratio of water to continents

Plate tectonic re-cycling

Magnetic field

Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.

The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.

The above list contains factors required for complex life, but life is not guaranteed to arise even if all factors are met. The fact that a large, stabilizing moon is required and ours just happens to provide us with a huge natural setting in which we can & have conducted a multitude of scientific experiments that have increased our knowledge base and confirmed scientific predictions, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence to support their finding that habitability = measure-ability. Think about it. In the accepted age view of the solar system & Earth, with the Moon’s recession rate coupled with the Sun’s expansion rate, these perfect solar eclipses, along with the scientific discoveries that accompany them, will soon be gone (10 million years). The best place for viewing eclipses, is also the only place in the solar system with perfect solar eclipses, is also the only place with conscious observers and we, intelligent observers, just happened to arrive when the scenario was best for scientific discovery.

Earthquakes, even though very destructive, are a necessary byproduct of the required plate tectonic recycling. They also offer us a way to measure the density of the material between designated points via the sound waves produced by plate movement. Volcanoes offer a way to vent the internal pressure. Without vents the internal pressure would build uncontrolled, until the planet exploded. Plate tectonics also means that there is an active core. An active core like the Earth’s creates a protective electro-magnetic field. The size of the field is important- too small and the solar winds blow it away; too large and life is a no-no. Volcanoes are part of the mineral recycling process. Volcanic ash also covers the ground, not only providing rich soil for future generations but also in some cases creating a time vault that enables scientists to get an excellent view of the past. To support plate tectonics a crust that is thick enough to support oceans and continents is required, but it can’t be so thick that it doesn’t have subducting plates to recycle vital minerals.

The laws that govern nature are independent of the constants that control them. IOW fudge with the constants and even though the outcome is changed, the law still remains true. And that change will, in all likely-hood, prevent the conditions required for complex life.

Did we win the “cosmic lottery”? Or is intentional design, design with the purpose of having said design be understandable and ensuring beings exist that can grow to understand it, the better explanation?



See also:

The Privileged Planet

Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Still Choking on his Ignorance

=-
Yup I can always rely on Kevin to spew evotard nonsense. In his latest spewage he sez:

This is, of course, the entire underpinning of modern creationism and the argument by analogy was dismissed well over a hundred years ago for the simple reason that watches don’t self reproduce and have changes in their manufacturing instructions with each generation.

Question-begging- how did self-reproduction arise? Where did those instruction come from?

Also even the RNA world needs to have two strands of RNA to go- one as a template and one as the catalyst- IOW self-reproduction isn’t even an option.

He also bitches about argument from analogy- well ALL evotards do because they don't have any analogies to support their position.

He also continues to conflate mere complexity with the specified complexity ID requires and he conflates simple pattern repitition with complexity.

Guest Post: Impact of Death on Beliefs about Intelligent Design and Evolution

-
Today I feature a guest post from Allison Gamble- "Allison Gamble has been a curious student of psychology since high school. She brings her understanding of the mind to work in the weird world of internet marketing with psychologydegree.net."

Humans have long had an innate curiosity about the world, and it is this attribute that separates man from beast. One of man's fundamental questions is the origin of the universe and of life itself. In explaining the “why” and “how” of man's existence, two of the major opposing viewpoints are intelligent design theory and evolutionary theory. Recently, Professor Jessica Tracy of the University of British Columbia in Canada published a study reviewing the implications of people's recognition of their own mortality on their belief in either intelligent design or evolutionary theory. It doesn't take a psychology degree to surmise what the conclusion of her findings illustrated; Dr. Tracy's research looked into the profound importance of an individual's belief structure in coping with his or her mortality. This article explores the significance of Dr. Tracy's recent findings.

Jessica Tracy on the Study of Existential Anxiety

Dr. Tracy published a paper in March 2011 exploring the effects of existential anxiety on a person's belief in either intelligent design or evolutionary theory. Dr. Tracy and her team hypothesized that people’s fear of death caused them to embrace the concept of intelligent design, specifically the belief in a supernatural force. Tracy examined this effect in different segments of the population, including psychology, natural sciences and general university students, as well as a sample of the non-academic population.

The research was carried out in five studies of more than a thousand Americans and Canadians of diverse social, economic, educational, and religious backgrounds. The respondents were asked to imagine dying and then explore their feelings regarding this traumatic event. A control group was used as a comparison and asked to imagine pain from a dental procedure, an event of considerable discomfort without the profound implication of existence.

After going through this thought process, the respondents read similarly styled excerpts by Professor Richard Dawkins advocating evolutionary theory and Professor Michael Behe supporting intelligent design. The respondents then answered questions about their views on the two theories. The impact of thoughts of mortality was then compared among the groups studied.

The first group discussed by Dr. Tracy was the group of psychology students, who were expected to have a core belief in evolution based on their training and curriculum. After pondering death, the students were found to have increased acceptance of intelligent design compared to the control group, without any change in their acceptance of evolution. The implication of this result is that mortality and existential concerns cause people to seek the comfort that intelligent design offered in a benevolent guiding force.

The second group discussed by Dr. Tracy was a group of undergraduate students from a broad range of fields. The students in this group who considered their mortality showed a greater acceptance of intelligent design and reduced acceptance of evolutionary theory compared to the control group. Again, considerations of mortality caused people to cling more to intelligent design, although additionally to reject evolution.

The third group explored was comprised of a varied mix of individuals from the general population. The results from this group were similar to the second group; namely, thoughts of death promoted belief in intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

The fourth group studied was given a third passage to consider by Carl Sagan, which suggested that existential meaning exists for mankind even in a world view based on scientific theory. Interestingly, this alternate passage caused a negative shift in attitudes towards intelligent design and a positive shift toward evolution. This result indicates that it is man's search for a larger meaning to existence that is key to providing comfort in the face of his own mortality.

The last group studied was a group of natural science students, who were expected to have naturalism as a core belief. The effect of mortality considerations actually led to an increased acceptance of evolutionary theory as a source of existential comfort, and a reduced acceptance of intelligent design.

Significance of the Study

The findings of Dr. Tracy's study indicate that people have an inherent need to find a larger meaning in their existence when faced with their own mortality. Furthermore, among the general populace particularly, it is intelligent design that provides the greatest comfort. In fact, in many individuals, far from providing comfort, evolution provides a comparatively bleak world view, potentially stirring feelings of despair. It is only a small subset of individuals adhering to a naturalistic view of the world who is able to find comfort in evolutionary theory. Furthermore, when examining religious backgrounds of individuals in the Dr. Tracy's studies, those following the Christian faith strongly favored the intelligent design theory.

It is clear from Dr. Tracy's study that intelligent design plays a critical importance in providing comfort and meaning to many individuals. Today's rapidly changing world has a tendency to leave a lot of people adrift, with depression and anxiety becoming rampant in society. As a result, it is important to present intelligent design theory as part of a comprehensive curriculum to spur within individuals a deeper exploration of self and with it, improved spiritual and psychological well-being.

Thank you Allison, very interesting.

Intelligent Design: An Alternative Theory of Evolution

-
That's right ID is an alternative theory of evolution. That means it is an alternative to Darwinism and neo-darwinism, ie the modern synthesis.

Ya see, as I have been saying and proving- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolutuion*, rather ID is anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution. That means, according to ID, that not all genetic changes are accidents/ errors/ mistakes. Dr Spetner went over this in his book "Not By Chance".




* Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism
(MAY 2000)

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

Then we have:

What is Intelligent Design and What is it Challenging?- a short video featuring Stephen C. Meyer on Intelligent Design. He also makes it clear that ID is not anti-evolution.

Next Dembski and Wells weigh in:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

Only a dishonest evotard- wait that is a repetitive as all evotards are dishonest- would say ID is anti-evolution.

When Kevin R. McCarthy, AKA OgreMKV, Shits and Pisses Himself

-
Yes indeed we have Kevin R. McCarthy shitting and pissing himself. And he doesn't even realize it. What is even funnier is RichTard Hughes jumps in the shit and plays around in it.

Sorry guys but calling out a liar and then saying "If I do anything..." does not constitute a threat- not one that any law will consider. Context and wording is ever so important when it comes to legal matters.

But anyways I will await the summons...