We continue to get closer to finding another earth in another solar system.
"The Gliese 581 system delivers again. Giese 581 is a red dwarf star 20.4 light years away that until recently boasted the lightest extrasolar planet ever found. At 5 Earth masses, Gliese 581c was not exactly a second Earth, but it and 7 Earth mass Gliese 581d captured the worlds imagination as they seemed to be in the habitable zone of their parent star, where liquid water can exist.
Now the smallest mass planet ever has been discovered around Gliese 581, a 1.9 mass planet Gliese 581e, presumably rocky, that screams around Gliese 581 in a little over three days. At a mere 0.03 Astronomical Units from its star, Gliese 581e is a Mercury-like world, baking in the close embrace of the Red Dwarf."
I can't wait to hear what sort of rationalizations the creationists will come up with when we finally find the life on another planet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"I can't wait to hear what sort of rationalizations the creationists will come up with when we finally find the life on another planet. "
You're making the same mistake as Luke did in the Thor vs God post. What you're claiming is a big issue to fundies is not a big issue to fundies, at least not to most fundies. In addition, your statement has two other features. It doesn't distinguish between "life" and "intelligent life," which might make a difference, and it uses the word "when," instead of "if," as if you have some sort of faith that life will be found on another planet. Actually it's kind of amusing when researchers think they found water on other celestial bodies, or found extra-solar planets, and their imaginations immediately bubble up with talk about potential life.
I'd say that, if true, the fact that this wouldn't be an issue for fundies is a strike against them. It shows they don't think too deeply about the implications of their theology. But then why would we expect any more from people who believe the Noah's ark story actually happened? Explaining away life on other planets is a cinch compared to explaining the problems with that fable.
Given that there is not a shred of Biblical evidence that the writers even knew that other planets existed (other than lights in the sky), the distinction between life on other planets and intelligent life on other planets is trivial. The fundies' epistemology falls behind considerably earlier in the game.
Faith? No. Reasoned expectation given the evidence. After all, life occurred here, so the odds of it occurring somewhere else in the universe, given the tremendous number of planets seemingly out there, approaches one even if the beginning probabilities are set at completely unreasonable levels. There's just no evidence we're all that special. The no-life-anywhere-else assumption is unreasonable whether one takes a Creator view or not.
Life is a crucial element for the development of life as we know it. What else should they get excited about? Doesn't your imagination get stirred when thinking about what life on other planets might be like?
I'm afraid I disagree with your dismissal of the idea that intelligent vs unintelligent life matters. If there is intelligent life on other planets (that is, the kind that has to deal with moral issues), then it might indeed be true, as you say, that this would pose a problem to many (maybe even most) Biblical theologians. If there is only unintelligent life out there, then it would pose no problem at all, as you can tell by reading any religious essay you might find by googling on "bible life other planets." (Finding such an essay from hundreds of years ago may or may not be more convincing to you. Also, it's a matter of "explaining," not "explaining away.") The fact that the Bible doesn't mention the possibility seems to be important in your eyes, but I'm sure you can see why it really poses no problem, given that there are lots of significant things the Bible doesn't mention.
"The no-life-anywhere-else assumption is unreasonable whether one takes a Creator view or not."
You have what to base that statement from an atheistic point of view. In fact, you should probably even believe that on some other planet somewhere, there are two people named scienceavenger and ronaldo having this same conversation. But from a pro-Creator view, you have nothing to base it on.
(PS, you may wish to edit the first word in your fourth paragraph.)
I have no doubts of the abilities of religious thinkers to come up with all sorts of wild just-so stories as to why they could handle nonintelligent life. That's all they are, and do indeed qualify for the "explaining away" label, so long as they only explain findings after the fact, as opposed to displaying some of that divine future insight we would expect from a truly divinely inspired tome.
That there are lots of significant things the Bible doesn't mention, particularly anything unambiguous and far outside knowledge of the people of the time, certainly poses no problems for me. It's part of the strong evidence that the book is a set of tall tales written by primitive people, and little else.
That the no-life-anywhere-else argument is unreasonable from an atheistic POV for the reasons already given. For a Creator view, it simply makes no sense to have a universe as large and filled with stars as this one and have the creator only put life in this one, tiny, unremarkable corner of it. It's the sort of thing that requires the imaginations of professional theologins to explain away.
"For a Creator view, it simply makes no sense to have a universe as large and filled with stars as this one and have the creator only put life in this one, tiny, unremarkable corner of it. It's the sort of thing that requires the imaginations of professional theologins to explain away."
Why don't you ask your readers the following question:
From a religious point-of-view, not from a scientific one, does it make more sense to have just one planet with life on it or many planets with life on them.
Sounds like a fair question to me. I think that among your acquaintances, even the anti-religious ones, both sides will be represented.
From a religious point-of-view, not from a scientific one, does it make more sense to have just one planet with life on it or many planets with life on them.
I'll toss my hat in the ring on that. I don't think that from a religious point of view, any observation makes any more or less sense than any observation. If we're talking about guessing the will of an omnipotent and omniscient being doing whatever it pleases, I have no reason to assume anything.
Grass is green? Gods will. Grass is blue but often flashes red and displays portraits of pop stars? Also Gods will. Neither one makes more sense than the other.
LOL, TF, I couldn't have said it better, or more creatively, myself.
Post a Comment