The Privileged Planet

S

Stuu

New member
The Privileged Planet is video based on the book of the same name by Jay Richards, a philosopher, and Guillermo Gonzales, an astronomer both associates of the Discovery Institute. Interplanner has been referring to the book in many of his recent posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8

The video asserts an intelligent design view of the universe and the concluding remarks summarise what appears to be the Discovery Institute's philosophy, that the universe has been designed with human discovery of the cosmos as one of our 'intended' activities. It looks a bit like the Discovery Institute's attempt at a response to Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.

I haven't decided in my own mind whether videos like this are a good thing. One the one hand they can lead religious people with little science to a greater understanding of cosmology. On the other hand this video may present some science factually but it grossly misrepresents science by asserting a non-evidence based conspiracy theory as a reasonable scientific conclusion. At the moment I am inclined to think 'bad' rather than 'good'. After all, there are many really good sources out there that don't misrepresent science, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, for example!

Below I will outline what I mean by misrepresentation of science by pointing out some examples of scientific mistakes and wild conclusions from the video. Of course I welcome any response that can show I am making the kind of mistakes.

Stuart
 
Last edited:
S

Stuu

New member
The moon and sun


19.40 "...if our moon didn't exist, neither would we...the moon's powerful gravitational pull stabilises the angle of its axis at a nearly constant 23.5 degrees this ensures relatively temperate seasonal changes..."

20.23 "...we orbit what is known as a spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star. It is well suited for our needs..."

22.39 Probability calculation that asserts the chance of the identified factors that sustain complex life on earth arising together here, at the same time, is very small.

28.08 Description of the 'requirements' for a total solar eclipse.

28.28 "...the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon but is 400 times further away. So there is this coincidence that people have noted for centuries but they just said it's a coincidence and shrugged their shoulders..."


This section is one part of the 'fine tuning' argument, that our circumstances in the cosmos have been carefully tuned for us. In that last part Gonzales concludes that the perfection of the match between the disc of the moon and the disc of the sun allows this, and other discoveries. This, they conclude makes the Earth the best place for making scientific observations.

The problem with the fine tuning argument is that evolution by natural selection clearly shows us as adapted to our environment, not the other way round. If the conditions were wrong for complex life, there would be no complex life. We don't yet have enough knowledge to say how commonly life arises in the universe. It might be very common that the chemistry of life begins, and that only those places where complex life is possible does complex life arise, adapting to an ever-changing environment.

The problem with questioning the 'coincidence' of the moon disc and sun disc being the same size is that actually it is a coincidence we live at the time in earth's history when that is true. The moon is moving away from earth. In the past the disc of the moon was much bigger than the sun. In the future it will be smaller.

Regarding the 23.5 degree of axis tilt stabilised by the moon, the video doesn't really say how you could call a massive, destructive collision between two proto planets an act of 'fine tuning'.
 
S

Stuu

New member
The atmosphere


18.53 "...the oxygen nitrogen atmosphere we have is necessary for complex life.."

35.23 "...The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries..."

37.10 "...only the earth's atmosphere is transparent [because of the relatively low concentrations of carbon compounds]..."

39.22 "...it's not as if life could have evolved to use x-ray radiation or gamma radiation or something like that. There's really just a narrow part of the spectrum that would be useful to life processes...
...as it turns out, that is the same narrow part of the spectrum that is the most informative about the various structures that we discover in the universe around us..."

40.09 "...it's a remarkable coincidence that the kind of atmosphere that's needed for complex life like ourselves does not preclude that life from observing the distant universe..."


Ironically, the video uses images from the Hubble telescope, which was placed in orbit outside our atmosphere because that's where you need to be to get the best images. Also ironic was the discussion in the section after this of the dangers present due to gamma and x-ray radiation in the central part of the galaxy - we have to go outside the atmosphere to observe those frequencies too!

The early atmosphere was full of carbon compounds, and didn't have any free oxygen. This appearance of oxygen can be seen in the geological record as the time when rusted iron first appears. Oxygen is a product of the adaptation of single-celled organisms to photosynthesis.

The first, simple life forms didn't use oxygen. The assertion that complex life requires oxygen is blinkered. Just because that is all we know doesn't mean that is all that is possible. Bacteria on the sea floor use sulfur as the basis of their energy chemistry. Natural proton gradients can be a source of power too. Who says oxygen is a pre-requisite?

The assertion that x-ray or gamma radiation isn't useful to life processes is wrong. Evolution relies on selection from the variation produced by mutation, and high-energy radiation induces mutations.
 
S

Stuu

New member
Human capability


53.21 "...why is it that we also have the ability to discern for example what's going on inside atoms or inside black holes - these are completely outside the domain of everyday experience, totally surplus to everyday requirements, not at all necessary for good Darwinian survival." - Paul Davies


On the face of it a good question, but the assertion at the end shuts it down. There are many interesting hypotheses that could explain why we seem to be much more capable intellectually than life on the African Savannah would have demanded. And the other great apes share many qualities that are strikingly 'human' in character. Sure, chimpanzees don't have digital watches, but their intelligence isn't that far behind our own.

Is it that our intellectual endeavours are a by-product of the brain necessary to survive? Are we in an intellectual arms race driven by sexual selection, where there is a mating advantage to being smarter or able to contemplate the wider picture? Whatever the reason, it is poor science to claim these things are surplus or unnecessary without evidence.
 
S

Stuu

New member
Conspiracy theory


48.23 "...it is a universe governed by laws and forces that literally hold our planet earth and the entire cosmos together and are finely calibrated to allow for both complex life and scientific discovery..."

54.28 "...I think [fine tuning's] just the sort of pattern that ought to suggest to people conspiracy rather than mere coincidence..." Jay Richards



Some conspiracy theories are true. This one doesn't have a scrap of unambiguous evidence in its favour. The conspiracy theory isn't science, but the Discovery Institute is painting it as a reasonable scientific conclusion.

Stuart
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Stuu said:
The atmosphere


18.53 "...the oxygen nitrogen atmosphere we have is necessary for complex life.."

35.23 "...The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best overall setting for making scientific discoveries..."

37.10 "...only the earth's atmosphere is transparent [because of the relatively low concentrations of carbon compounds]..."

39.22 "...it's not as if life could have evolved to use x-ray radiation or gamma radiation or something like that. There's really just a narrow part of the spectrum that would be useful to life processes...
...as it turns out, that is the same narrow part of the spectrum that is the most informative about the various structures that we discover in the universe around us..."

40.09 "...it's a remarkable coincidence that the kind of atmosphere that's needed for complex life like ourselves does not preclude that life from observing the distant universe..."


Ironically, the video uses images from the Hubble telescope, which was placed in orbit outside our atmosphere because that's where you need to be to get the best images. Also ironic was the discussion in the section after this of the dangers present due to gamma and x-ray radiation in the central part of the galaxy - we have to go outside the atmosphere to observe those frequencies too!

The early atmosphere was full of carbon compounds, and didn't have any free oxygen. This appearance of oxygen can be seen in the geological record as the time when rusted iron first appears. Oxygen is a product of the adaptation of single-celled organisms to photosynthesis.

The first, simple life forms didn't use oxygen. The assertion that complex life requires oxygen is blinkered. Just because that is all we know doesn't mean that is all that is possible. Bacteria on the sea floor use sulfur as the basis of their energy chemistry. Natural proton gradients can be a source of power too. Who says oxygen is a pre-requisite?

The assertion that x-ray or gamma radiation isn't useful to life processes is wrong. Evolution relies on selection from the variation produced by mutation, and high-energy radiation induces mutations.
Click to expand...



That's not much of an irony to me, Stu, it is still basically the POV of the earth, just clearer. Statements like that are straining at small bits and pieces.

If the Bible was going to be fantasy, we wouldn't be anywhere close to this much fine-tuning. We would be in Middle Earth and when evil creatures were in the area, a special sword would glow blue. The fact that we are talking about observations that are as saturated in data as they are, would have been unthinkable as sacred to many fantasy or Eastern or hallucinogenic religions.
 
S

Stuu

New member
Interplanner said:
The quotes of scientists leaving the 'closed system of natural causes and effects' at the end of the Prager U video are perhaps better than G&R's assertions.

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Rel...ce-Argue-for-or-against-God.html#.VfygC_TPcQd
Click to expand...
Nope, that is pure comedy.

At least G&R discuss (mostly) real science, even if they draw fallacious conclusions. The Prager effort is a case built on fallacies that are in turn based on fallacies. For example, it uses strawman arguments and the argument from personal incredulity. The quotes of scientists is the fallacy of the appeal to authority. And none of the ones who really are scientists draw a scientific conclusion favourable to the tenor of the video, except Paul Davies who seems willing to mix business with pleasure in a most dishonest way.

Stuart
 
Nick M

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider said:
Just like the myth of "stuff just happens" 'evolution' was invented (as a necessity) by atheists.
Click to expand...

A Boeing 787 can not create itself out of nothing. It can't even pull together if all the pieces were laid side by side. Not in a trillion years. And neither can life, which is infinitely more complicated.
 
S

Stuu

New member
Nick M said:
A Boeing 787 can not create itself out of nothing. It can't even pull together if all the pieces were laid side by side. Not in a trillion years.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Aircraft are examples of intelligent design in action.

And neither can life, which is infinitely more complicated.
Click to expand...
What do you mean exactly by 'pull together' when it comes to life?

Stuart
 
6days

6days

New member
*
Stuu said:
The problem with the fine tuning argument is that evolution by natural selection clearly shows us as adapted to our environment, not the other way round. If the conditions were wrong for complex life, there would be no complex life.
Click to expand...
The problem is you reject an obvious possibility.

We lived in a universe fine tuned for life, because it was.*


*
Stuu said:
We don't yet have enough knowledge to say how commonly life arises in the universe. It might be very common that the chemistry of life begins, and that only those places where complex life is possible does complex life arise, adapting to an ever-changing environment.
Click to expand...
A possibility you are overlooking..... and one that science seems to support is that life only comes from life. Genesis tells us about the One who is the Life giver.

*
Stuu said:
The problem with questioning the 'coincidence' of the moon disc and sun disc being the same size is that actually it is a coincidence we live at the time in earth's history when that is true. The moon is moving away from earth. In the past the disc of the moon was much bigger than the sun. In the future it will be smaller.
Click to expand...
You seem to neglect the most obvious conclusion..... our universe and our earth was designed for life.
*
Stuu said:
Regarding the 23.5 degree of axis tilt stabilised by the moon, the video doesn't really say how you could call a massive, destructive collision between two proto planets an act of 'fine tuning'.
Click to expand...
Or.... our earth was positioned the exact distance necessary to sustain life in the oceans and to provide a awesome night light.*

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon
S

Stuu

New member
Interplanner said:
Stu,
did you somehow find that PP was unclear about where the design or tuning came from?
Click to expand...
The intelligent design crowd set themselves the goal of forcing god into the science classroom in the US through the strategies outlined in the Wedge Document.

That means their associates learned to speak in riddles, outlining the universe and its contents as unbelievably improbable and then calling it the product of some 'creator'. No mention of gods anywhere.

In this sort of video they carry on like that throughout, then give their 'personal views' at the end on what the creator might be.

Their aims were soundly defeated at the Dover Trial where the school board's attempts to introduce ID into the school programme was contested in court by parents. In particular, Kenneth Miller showed that their main claim, that cells contain little machines that are 'irreducibly complex' and therefore had to be the product of a 'creator', was wrong and therefore they were unconstitutionally trying to push a religious agenda into a school.

So much for the whole concept promoted by the Discovery Institute. It's not science, it's religion, and that's its legal description.

Stuart
 
S

Stuu

New member
6days said:
We lived in a universe fine tuned for life, because it was.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. You're wrong*.


*Your unsupported assertion is no better than mine.

A possibility you are overlooking..... and one that science seems to support is that life only comes from life.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. Of course the definition of life isn't an easy question.

Is your 'creator' a living thing? Is it made of cells, or does it consume energy by a chemical reaction like respiration, or does it reproduce, or does it grow, or does it require nutrition, or does it excrete waste products? If it isn't like this, then how can you say life came from life?

Genesis tells us about the One who is the Life giver.
Click to expand...
Genesis also tells us that there was an evening and a morning before there was a sun to mark them, that there is a solid firmament (which NASA has never crashed even a single spacecraft into), that every herb and every tree are for eating (including deadly nightshade), that snakes can talk, that people used to live for 900 years, that there used to be giants, that there was a global flood in the time of humans, that when goats copulate in sight of striped sticks they will conceive striped offspring, and that the Australian aboriginal people came to Egypt to buy corn from Joseph.

But you are sure Genesis is reliable on the invisible, inaudible creator that doesn't appear to be necessary for the existence of anything.

You seem to neglect the most obvious conclusion..... our universe and our earth was designed for life.
Click to expand...
The most obvious conclusion (if we are basing this on evidence) is that it wasn't designed. It takes lots of extra assumptions about sky friends to conclude that there was design involved.

Or.... our earth was positioned the exact distance necessary to sustain life in the oceans and to provide a awesome night light.
Click to expand...
So how come the distance has been changing this whole time?

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question".
Click to expand...
The appeal to authority. I can appeal to different authorities who will say the opposite.

Stuart
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Nick M said:
A Boeing 787 can not create itself out of nothing. It can't even pull together if all the pieces were laid side by side. Not in a trillion years. And neither can life, which is infinitely more complicated.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Nick, we always appreciate your insightful comments.

It is interesting how anti-science and anti-knowledge types love to make this statement about 787's, or watches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top