Still hoppin' in Iowa

In reality, DASD's modest curriculum change advances many legitimate, secular educational goals, including: (1) Raising students awareness about multiple ways of knowing; (2) Promoting critical thinking; (3) Encouraging students to assume more responsibility in their learning and to play an active part in constructing their own knowledge; (4) Promoting a fuller understanding of the theory of evolution, including its limitations; (5) Aligning its curriculum with the Pennsylvania Academic Standards, which require students to "Critically evaluate the status of existing theories," including the "theory of evolution"; and (6) Helping students understand the views inherent in controversial issues, such as biological evolution, which is consistent with the Santorum Amendment.

Oops, posted to the wrong thread. Maybe some helpful moderator can move that to the Dover thread?

"It is a scientific theory," Gonzalez said. "It is not faith-based or religion-based. To say that it is faith-based is an outright lie."

... Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. ...

An ISU professor and supporter of Intelligent Design has expressed his disappointment with a national organization after it said the theory is not scientific. "I'm certainly very disappointed with the AAUP," said Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy and co-author of the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery." "Especially when this is supposed to be an organization that encourages scientific exploration and thought." [emphasis added]

In a letter sent to the Daily by the American Association of University Professors, Roger Bowen, general secretary for the organization, applauded ISU faculty members who signed a letter in August rejecting Intelligent Design as a credible scientific theory and also expressed concern that the debate over Intelligent Design may pose a threat to academic freedom in the near future.

If anyone's academic freedom is being impinged upon, it is the ID theorists'.

Does Gonzalez claim to be doing any actual scientific exploration on this topic? Perhaps you should ask him to describe some of it to your panel. Of course, it's pretty certain that he won't - because he can't. The next time he complains about unfair treatment, you can point out that he had a chance to make his case, and couldn't/wouldn't do so.

— qetzal

How ironic. If anyone's academic freedom is being impinged upon, it is the ID theorists'.

— theonomo

I gotta say, as an ISU alum, I'm proud of the faculty there. Iowa State's a pretty damn good school, and it doesn't need any IDiots mucking it up.

I hope the Wedge document is presented at the trial so it becomes better known in the popular media. Many of the newspaper articles published about the trial neglect to mention it anywhere.

Available below are presentations given at the American Scientific Affiliation 2003 Annual Meeting: A Critique of the Privileged Planet Hypothesis. And at the 2004 "Intelligent Design and the Future of Science" Conference: The Potentials and the Pitfalls of the Privileged Planet Hypothesis They are, as their titles imply, critical analyses of the Privileged Planet Hypothesis propounded by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Wesley Richards.

Theonomo wrote: "How ironic. If anyone's academic freedom is being impinged upon, it is the ID theorists'."

It is highly unusual that a group of professors is publicly denouncing the ideas of another. One could argue that he is being limited in his academic freedom, although he still has his job and he is still able to apply for grants for his "research", although no agency outside the DI would probably give him money. However, review by one's peers is one of the main facets of modern science. The fact that Gonzalez's peers have issued a summary judgment against his work shouldn't be that shocking, as it his scientific claims are completely unfounded and attempt to circumvent the scientific process to feed the biases and ignorance of the public.

What's more threatening to academic freedom, since theonomo seemed to miss this entirely, is the idea of the non-expert public, most of whom know next to nothing about biology, telling scientists that an important scientific theory with a solid evidentiary foundation should be pressented as though it were pure speculation.

Why would Sigma Xi (http://www.sigmaxi.org/), The Scientific Research Society, host Guillermo Gonzalez to talk about a topic other than Physics or Astronomy? I have received two grants in aid of research from Sigma Xi for my evo/devo graduate research, and find myself baffled that this science-based group would host him to talk about a pseudo-science . . . Have I missed something?

Why would Sigma Xi (http://www.sigmaxi.org/), The Scientific Research Society, host Guillermo Gonzalez to talk about a topic other than Physics or Astronomy? I have received two grants in aid of research from Sigma Xi for my evo/devo graduate research, and find myself baffled that this science-based group would host him to talk about a pseudo-science ... Have I missed something?

You chuckleheads miss the boat (again).

Gonzalez, I gather, supports ID, but his theory, as described in the Privileged Planet, is in fact, not ID at all. Indeed, it has falsified one aspect of cosmological ID---the so-called tie breaker. (Hey Wesley, this is in the real-life real-scientist definition of falsifiability---i.e., if the evidence against something mounts to a point where a threshold is crossed, you abandon the hypothesis.)

Gonzalez's (and Richard's) theory is: observability is highly correlated with habitability. There is nothing ID about it. In fact, as I said, it falsifies the tie-breaker corollary of cosmological ID that I used to believe: namely that the designer not only fine-tuned us a place to live but that he also, as a bonus, gave us a nearly perfect observation platform. (Called a tie-breaker because, even if other hypotheses were as good at explaining the fine-tuning as ID, they could not explain our privileged observability.) Gonzalez and Richards posit that the extraordinary observation platform we enjoy is a necessary consequence of habitability, not an unrelated "bonus" as I had supposed. The tie-breaker is rather dead, alas.

The hypothesis that habitability is related to observability holds even it we are here as a result of pure naturalism. Furthermore, Gonzalez and Richards offer some tests which are infinitely better that the "Sure you can falsify evolution just find a pre-Cambrian human fossil" responses I've gotten, regarding falsifying evolution, on PT.

Gonzalez's (and Richard's) theory is: observability is highly correlated with habitability.

— David Heddle

Why would Sigma Xi (http://www.sigmaxi.org/), The Scientific Research Society, host Guillermo Gonzalez to talk about a topic other than Physics or Astronomy? I have received two grants in aid of research from Sigma Xi for my evo/devo graduate research, and find myself baffled that this science-based group would host him to talk about a pseudo-science ... Have I missed something?

— ctenotrish

WKV,

Sure, no problem.

Habitability: The fact that our planet supports life
Observability: (or measurability): The fact that our planet offers a privileged vantage point for scientific observations.

One simple example: our sun is in a "cosmic backwater" location in the Milky Way, between two spiral arms. That is good, because we are in a low radiation region, since there are not too many nearby supernovae. That's the habitability. The observability comes from the fact that our location also (given our aforementioned low stellar density) affords us with a view outside of the galaxy, allowing us to do cosmology.

So the IDiots want kids to be "constructing their own knowledge?" How is that different from "making stuff up?"

Why would Sigma Xi (http://www.sigmaxi.org/), The Scientific Research Society, host Guillermo Gonzalez to talk about a topic other than Physics or Astronomy? I have received two grants in aid of research from Sigma Xi for my evo/devo graduate research, and find myself baffled that this science-based group would host him to talk about a pseudo-science ... Have I missed something?

— ctenotrish

"Constructing knowledge" is a common edubabble phrase; if you want to see some excellent (and highly critical, and utterly hilarious) analysis of the meaning of that term and many others, go to EducatioNation (and turn away from the monitor while drinking anything).

Comment #49631 Posted by theonomo on September 26, 2005 10:28 AM (e) (s) How ironic. If anyone's academic freedom is being impinged upon, it is the ID theorists'.

You chuckleheads miss the boat (again). Gonzalez, I gather, supports ID, but his theory, as described in the Privileged Planet, is in fact, not ID at all.

The privileged planet hypothesis has some very weak logic, and it is not falsifiable. Observability is dependent on habitability, only because simply we can only make observations were we live. We have cosmology, because we can. If we were in a different place, we would be doing something else.
It is akin to the fine tuning argument. That is if the universe was a little different, life as we know it wouldn't exists. Yes that is true, but what about life as we don't know it.
So basically, if we were in another location in the universe, the knowledge we have acquired over the years wouldn't be the same. But who is to say it would be any less?
The only way this "theory" makes sense is if earth is in an unique location that allows us to optimally observe more than half of all possible observation.
In the end, the "theory" asks us to compare what we know and can observe to what we do not know and can not observe. How testable is that?

Habitability: The fact that our planet supports life Observability: (or measurability): The fact that our planet offers a privileged vantage point for scientific observations. One simple example: our sun is in a "cosmic backwater" location in the Milky Way, between two spiral arms. That is good, because we are in a low radiation region, since there are not too many nearby supernovae. That's the habitability. The observability comes from the fact that our location also (given our aforementioned low stellar density) affords us with a view outside of the galaxy, allowing us to do cosmology.

— David Heddle

One simple example: our sun is in a "cosmic backwater" location in the Milky Way...

Gee bobbob, that is stunning logic. Wrong of course, but stunning. Like your fine tuning gem: "That is if the universe was a little different, life as we know it wouldn't exists. Yes that is true, but what about life as we don't know it."

Fine-tuning deals with the requirements for generic complex life. As such, there only is "life as we know it." Any complex life requires complex chemistry, and that requires heavy elements, and that requires super nova explosions, and they are fine tuned. It almost certainly requires water as well, given its role as nature's great solvent. There may be ways around fine-tuning, but the "other kind of life forms argument" will never cut it. Unless you van figure out how to make complex life out of hydrogen and a little helium--or out of neutron stars--the two fates of the universe if the expansion rate wasn't fine tuned.

What would we be doing in place of cosmology if we lived on Venus?

Ryan: nice try. First of all, we are not talking about what a designer would do, but G&R's habitability is correlated to observability theory--which as I said is not ID at all. Even the least scientifically savvy person should recognize that this theory does not demand the best possible observation platform imaginable--it only states that a habitable planet will one that allows good observations.

By the way, you are wrong for another reason as well. We have to be in a region of the galaxy where there was sufficient metallic dust for the formation of planets--so while we are not in a region where the stellar density is too high, we are also not in a region where it is too low. We are also in a region of the galaxy that provides stability for the sun's orbit. It follows, then, that we will not have a "perfect" view of the cosmos--any place with a perfect view will not be habitable.

Your argument boils down to the tiresome "well a really good designer could surely do better" which is easy to counter if we are talking ID, and irrelevant given that we aren't.

You wrote: "Even a less than competent designer could have hooked us up with a galaxy closer to a nice sized galaxy cluster if they really wanted us to get everthing we could from cosmology." Did you miss the part where I said G&R falsify this (former) aspect of ID---their theory, which you seem to miss, is that we have an observable platform because we also habitable, not because of design (although from what I know they would agree that the habitable aspect was the result of design.)

"(1) Raising students awareness about multiple ways of knowing;"

Here's a great way of 'knowing': make stuff up and insist it is true because, well, just because.

Fine-tuning deals with the requirements for generic complex life. As such, there only is "life as we know it." Any complex life requires complex chemistry, and that requires heavy elements, and that requires super nova explosions, and they are fine tuned. It almost certainly requires water as well, given its role as nature's great solvent. There may be ways around fine-tuning, but the "other kind of life forms argument" will never cut it. Unless you van figure out how to make complex life out of hydrogen and a little helium---or out of neutron stars---the two fates of the universe if the expansion rate wasn't fine tuned.

Gonzalez's (and Richard's) theory is: observability is highly correlated with habitability. There is nothing ID about it. In fact, as I said, it falsifies the tie-breaker corollary of cosmological ID that I used to believe: namely that the designer not only fine-tuned us a place to live but that he also, as a bonus, gave us a nearly perfect observation platform.

On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for discovery.

Gee bobbob, that is stunning logic. Wrong of course, but stunning. Like your fine tuning gem: "That is if the universe was a little different, life as we know it wouldn't exists. Yes that is true, but what about life as we don't know it." Fine-tuning deals with the requirements for generic complex life. As such, there only is "life as we know it." Any complex life requires complex chemistry, and that requires heavy elements, and that requires super nova explosions, and they are fine tuned. It almost certainly requires water as well, given its role as nature's great solvent. There may be ways around fine-tuning, but the "other kind of life forms argument" will never cut it. Unless you van figure out how to make complex life out of hydrogen and a little helium---or out of neutron stars---the two fates of the universe if the expansion rate wasn't fine tuned.

Ryan: nice try. First of all, we are not talking about what a designer would do, but G&R's habitability is correlated to observability theory---which as I said is not ID at all. Even the least scientifically savvy person should recognize that this theory does not demand the best possible observation platform imaginable---it only states that a habitable planet will one that allows good observations.

Mr. Heddle said: "Gonzalez's (and Richard's) theory is: observability is highly correlated with habitability." But then said "their theory, which you seem to miss, is that we have an observable platform because we also habitable...", which I assume means because it is also habitable.

I have a few questions for Mr. Heddle: 1. Since correlation does not equate to causality, is there some other knowledge from which you seem to make the causal inference in the latter quoted statement? 2. In any case, what then is the point of Gonzalez's theory, and how does it support or falsify anything? The "tie braker corollary" is garbage even without this observation, and the fact that you used to believe in it makes it no less so. I see neither where the tie breaker was credible to begin with, nor falsified by Gonzalez theory as stated in your post. 3. Are you saying Gonzalez isn't a proponent of ID? It isn't clear. I've never read his book, and don't plan to, but he is frequently mentioned as one of the ID guys, and his book is spoken of as an ID book. Please share all the great insights you have unloaded from the boat the rest of us sadly missed out on.

Alienward

"that is designed for life, and designed for discovery."

Of course, but not separately. That's their point--that the discovery part is necessary. I never denied that they would claim that the universe was designed for life, what I pointed out is that their theory, that habitibility is correlated to observability--does not require a designer, and so it is not ID. Please try to improve your reading comprehension.

It is only common sense--if their designer designed observability too, then there would be no need for a correlation. In fact, it would strengthen ID if they were 180 degrees wrong--i.e. if habitibility and observability were inversely correlated and yet our planet was both.

RGD, try, for once, to stay on topic. This is not about "my" fine tuning or probability, it's about G%R's theory.

H. Humbert wrote: "The Universe had to come out some way, it just happened to turn out in a way that would eventually give rise to human beings. I see nothing that proves this configuration of our Universe must be so, or that it could not be so without divine assistance.
Random chance works perfectly well as an explanation here."

I think I'm with RG on this one. There is nothing to show that the universe "came out" of anything. The "fine-tuning" theory posits that all of the physical constants in the universe, which are called constants because we don't see them change, are actually somehow variables.

Then in an ironic contrast to the previous position, it assumes our own experience is enough to claim some knowledge about every possible form of life that could exist, and how small deviations in previously universal constants would preclude all possible forms in every part of the universe.

Regarding questions of universal origin, I don't think "random chance" is even required to refute ID. "We don't know" seems to be the only appropriate answer.

David Heddle: So, are you backing down from the "extraordinary observation platform" claim to just the statement that a habitable planet is likely to have some semi-respectable look at the universe or did you over-sell Gonzalez and Richards' claims in your first post to this thread? Given the rather vague notions of "observation platform" that you've run through so far, that part seems to be some sort of tacked-on bit that has no real relevance outside ID circles. Further, if there are much, much better observational platforms out there that aren't in regions that would be likely to evolve sentient life (as we understand it, anyway), then the claim that observation is correlated with habitability seems dubious at best.

After reading this last post of yours, I'm having a difficult time working out what insight Gonzalez and Richards are supposed to have come up with here. Is it merely that we find planets like ours where we expect to find planets like ours? What's the actual science here?

sanjait:

please be advised that what Mr. Heddle calls "ID" and what the rest of the world calls "ID" are frequently at odds with one another. I'm sure that if you run a search for Mr. Heddle's posts to this forum, you'll notice that he hilariously claims (but never backs up, of course) that if our universe wasn't the only one around, then ID would be falsified.

RGD, try, for once, to stay on topic. This is not about "my" fine tuning or probability, it's about G%R's theory.

All we need to do is start with the assumption that we exalted humans were put here, deliberately, for some purpose. And that the universe was created around us, for purposes closely related. If we assess (on the basis of a single data point) that the probability of our being here is extremely high, this is proof the designer intended us to be here. Conversely, if the probability is assessed as extremely unlikely (an equally valid assessment, given one datum), why, this is ALSO proof the designer intended us to be here. If we can see quite a bit, this is more proof. But since we can't see very much at all, this is ALSO proof.

And everything and its opposite are proof because of our starting assumptions, and for no other reason. The rest of all these circular justifications and rationalizations are Free Home Demonstrations that some people like to dress up their faiths and preferences with lots of doubletalk and handwaving, so they can call it "science". Gonzalez and Richards find design because they KNOW they're looking at design. That's really sufficient reason for them and perhaps for most people.

Ahh I see, he is a forum character. I noticed he brought a perspective that was strangely unexplained and without introduction or prompt. However, now I see many people in here already know each other, and must know from previous knowledge what Mr. Heddle's point is, because without a priori knowledge of him I couldn't figure it out.

Gonzalez, I gather, supports ID, but his theory, as described in the Privileged Planet, is in fact, not ID at all.

Just for clarification---I don't think Gonzalez will be on the University of Iowa panel.

— Tara Smith, in #49635

Mr. Heddle said: "Gonzalez's (and Richard's) theory is: observability is highly correlated with habitability."

Sanjait,

A "forum character" is a very polite way of describing Heddle. I would resort to "crackpot" since I was raised by jackels.

There is no point in replying to Heddle. Time after time he throws out the most enormous amount of chum and then runs off when the discussion finally closes in on his vacuuous arguments. Heddle is intellectually dishonest, a halmark of the fanatical creationist ilk.

Gonzalez is a very minor and expendable character in the ID drama. Gonzalez is simply wrong and the more shrill his cries of "lies, lies!" are, the more isolated he will become. In the end the DI won't support Gonzalez because their focus is on the distruction of Darwinism and cosmological ID is a dilettante effort at best. At some point his liability as an embarrassment to the Astronomy Department at ISU will outweigh his value as a teacher and he will be encouraged to ply his trade elsewhere.

I think Behe is very close to that point with the statement recently issued by his own department distancing themselves from Behe's views. To name a colleague in a statement like that was quite extrordinary.

David Heddle You chuckleheads miss the boat (again).

"Sure you can falsify evolution just find a pre-Cambrian human fossil" responses I've gotten, regarding falsifying evolution, on PT.

Ryan,

I am not backing down from anything---besides we are talking about G&R's theory, not mine---I can't "back down" from their theory. If they postulate that habitability and measurability are correlated, then it should be obvious to anyone that their theory does not demand that the earth is the best possible observation platform imaginable. You do understand what a correlation is?

"Further, if there are much, much better observational platforms out there that aren't in regions that would be likely to evolve sentient life"

You are, I gather, concentrating on the one example I used (low stellar density)---G&R use many other examples of our observability---you need to look at them all before your claim has merit. Another example: the knowledge we have learned about stellar evolution from eclipses, which require a large moon, which stabilizes the planet's orbit and cleans the oceans.

Flint---you are speaking gibberish. The fact that habitability is related to observability has nothing to do with whether or not humans are in an exalted position. It either is or it isn't---it is, in principle, testable.

Lenny, I have answered your question twice. But you have never answered mine, which is, *ahem*:

Why should anyone pay any more attention to your incessant chanting than they should to anyone else's? What makes yours any better than theirs? Other than your say-so?

Lenny:

"In other words, "observations can only be made where observers are able to make observations".

Why Lenny, that's just plain dumb. The earth is a good platform for scientific observation even if nobody was around to take advantage of it.

David Heddle You chuckleheads miss the boat (again).

"Sure you can falsify evolution just find a pre-Cambrian human fossil" responses I've gotten, regarding falsifying evolution, on PT.

Mr. Heddle,

What you continually fail to realize is that you are not jabbering to the uninformed masses. I have studied astrophysics for 35 years and I have a PhD.

You talk nonsense.

You continue to be an embarrassment to the entire species. You have two ears, two eyes and one mouth. Perhaps you should spend more time using your more available assets. I'm sorry the Universe does not fit your tiny worldview, but that's beyond our control.

Best regards,
Dr. Bill

David: I do large scale structure cosmology for a living (feel free to look me up on astro-ph); I don't need you to try telling me about what "correlation" means. You're using the term loosely at best. What you actually want to say is that regions which are habitable (presuming that that's a binary quantity) also have some minimum quality of "observability" (which remains ill-defined). If they were actually positively correlated, you'd find that the places most likely to generate life were also the places which gave the best vantage point for observing the cosmos and vice versa. This is clearly not the case and any astronomer worth the title could list a dozen places off the top of their head where they'd rather be in order to observe the universe than where we find ourselves. Of course Gonzalez and Richards seem to phrase their results with this same stilted terminology, so I suppose it's not entirely your fault for parroting their poor usage.

As for your statement about eclipses and stellar evolution, you're going to have to come up with something much more specific. I've taken three classes in stellar structure and evolution and I have no idea what you're talking about, nor does google offer any hints. I found plenty about Gonzalez's claims about an eclipse being vital for verifying general relativity (which is amusing if you know much about Eddington's expedition) and certainly it's handy for studying the corona, but the stellar evolution claim suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.

Ryan,

I think the sun is rising and Heddle will return to his cave. Nice summary.

Regards,
Doc

David,

The DI muct be scraping the bottom of the barrel for talent. One of their usual bombastic cover-ups (aka press releases) described you tearing a well known scientist's critique of Privileged Piffle - oops! Planet - apart limb by limb. It is hard to imagine anyone being more ignorant than yourself - maybe the Di guys are really way below on the comprehension scale. Considering there is such a wealth of studies on cosmology I am surprised you aren't acquainted with the basics.

David, how does the hypothesis of "observability" stand up if it turns out life originated deep in the ocean at deep sea vents, or deep in the soil (perhaps thousands of feet deep)?

Of what use is the position to see the universe, planet-wise, when life originates too far beneath the surface to take advantage of it?

I first heard Guillermo Gonzalez present his ideas about our place in the universe being designed to facilitate scientific discovery at a conference at Yale in the fall of 2000. For me this was the high point of the conference. Jay Richards and Guillermo have since developed this idea, providing numerous lines of evidence to show that without a host of contingent facts being just-so, our scientific understanding would be impossible or severely attenuated. The idea that the world and features of it are designed to help us understand the world and those features constitutes a remarkable insight. Gonzalez and Richards apply this insight mainly at the level of cosmology and astrophysics. But it promises to apply also in biology. Indeed, some preliminary work in the bioinformatics literature is suggesting that biological systems contain information of no functional use to the organism as such, but information that is useful to the investigator in examining the organism and trying to understand it. The Privileged Planet breaks new ground. Einstein found it incomprehensible why the world should be comprehensible. Gonzalez and Richards begin to provide an answer to Einstein's perplexity.

Ed B,

Dembski is wrong. Simple as that. Gonzalez is equally wrong.

Your entire thesis is invalid.

Try again.

The comment:

Even a less than competent designer could have hooked us up with a galaxy closer to a nice sized galaxy cluster if they really wanted us to get everthing we could from cosmology.

Provides an even better way of testing a "non-front-loaded" ID scenario than my assertion that such a scenario could be tested in a zone where life is improbable but not impossible. It is unclear that being closer to a large cluster of galaxies would negatively impact habitability.

Furthermore, the assertion that "[t]he earth is a good platform for scientific observation even if nobody was around to take advantage of it" is both correct and somewhat contrary to some of the assertions in the Privileged Planet. The Privileged Planet (which I must admit that I have only scanned) seemed to spend substantial time talking about constrained optimization. But it would seem that one could then open up putatively unihabitable regions of the galaxy for consideration. It is not immediately clear that the Earth (or habitable planets, restricting consideration to organisms similar to animals on the Earth) would provide the best ability to make observations in a broad set of sciences. When the observer bias is considered it seems difficult to convincingly assert that the Earth is an exceptionallly good platform for observation.

"that is designed for life, and designed for discovery." Of course, but not separately. That's their point---that the discovery part is necessary. I never denied that they would claim that the universe was designed for life, what I pointed out is that their theory, that habitibility is correlated to observability---does not require a designer, and so it is not ID. Please try to improve your reading comprehension.

It is only common sense---if their designer designed observability too, then there would be no need for a correlation. In fact, it would strengthen ID if they were 180 degrees wrong---i.e. if habitibility and observability were inversely correlated and yet our planet was both.

Hey people. What are the odds that a traingle would have EXACTLY 3 sides? Huh? Huh?

3 simple letters. G O D. But not that Muslim one.

So is it surprising that the sets of observations and the knowledge based upon those observations that were obtained under these conditions might appear well-suited to have been observed from the Earth?

To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow preordained for us, because we are so well suited to live in it, he mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle.

Ed B,

You are still wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Your thesis has no substance.

Quit bugging us with your nonsense.

(Hey Wesley, this is in the real-life real-scientist definition of falsifiability---i.e., if the evidence against something mounts to a point where a threshold is crossed, you abandon the hypothesis.)

— David Heddle

After all; the real subject of admiration is, that we understand so much of astronomy as we do. That an animal confined to the surface of one of the planets; bearing a less proportion to it than the smallest microscopic insect does to the plant it lives upon; that this little, busy, inquisitive creature, by the use of senses which were given to it for its domestic necessities, and by means of the assistance of those senses which it has had the art to procure, should have been enabled to observe the whole system of worlds to which its own belongs; the changes of place of the immense globes which compose it; and with such accuracy, as to mark out beforehand, the situation in the heavens in which they will be found at any future point of time; and that these bodies, after sailing through regions of void and trackless space, should arrive at the place where they were expected, not within a minute, but within a few seconds of a minute, of the time prefixed and predicted: all this is wonderful, whether we refer our admiration to the constancy of the heavenly motions themselves, or to the perspicacity and precision with which they have been noticed by mankind. Nor is this the whole, nor indeed the chief part of what astronomy teaches. By bringing reason to bear upon observation (the acutest reasoning upon the exactest observation), the astronomer has been able, out of the mystic dance,and the confusion (for such it is) under which the motions of the heavenly bodies present themselves to the eye of a mere gazer upon the skies, to elicit their order and their real paths. Our knowledge therefore of astronomy is admirable, though imperfect: and, amidst the confessed desiderata and desideranda, which impede our investigation of the wisdom of the Deity, in these the grandest of his works, there are to be found, in the phænomena, ascertained circumstances and laws, sufficient to indicate an intellectual agency in three of its principal operations, viz. in choosing, in determining, in regulating; in choosing, out of a boundless variety of suppositions which were equally possible, that which is beneficial; in determining, what, left to itself, had a thousand chances against conveniency, for one in its favour; in regulating subjects, as to quantity and degree, which, by their nature, were unlimited with respect to either. It will be our business to offer, under each of these heads, a few instances, such as best admit of a popular explication. (William Paley, Natural Theology, 1802, pp.380-382)

bill,

I agree that Dembski and Gonzalez are wrong in there assertions regarding ID. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that taking one of their ideas to a logical conclusion might not be an interesting exercise, esp. from the standpoint of the philosophy of science. Some of their ideas aren't even useful from that standpoint...

I wasn't really advancing a coherent thesis, just making a few observations. So it is not surprising that a coherent message didn't emerge. I really had two different points:

1. It is fair to "tar" Gonzalez with the identity of an ID advocate, even if one could come up with a naturalistic explanation for a specific idea he advances, because he is an ID advocate. This point was in response to David Heddle's assertion that the Privleged Planet hypothesis is not ID. I would argue that Heddle's point - although formally true in the sense that one could formulate naturalistic versions of the Privleged Planet hypothesis - is irrelevant to the larger point of whether Gonzalez is advancing ID in general. He is, and I suspect he would self identify as an ID advocate.

2. The second part of the post was simply an attempt on my part to see what aspects of the Privleged Planet hypothesis might in principle be falsifiable. To be honest, I was just curious, esp. regarding the possibility that data was already available that falsified the hypothesis. My scanning of the Privleged Planet book rang very flawed to me, and not just for the simple reason that the text brings up cosmological fine tuning in a discussion that is explicitly ID in nature (I'm refering here to the material that invokes Q from Star Trek).

But Rich - what about Allah in Arabic text ; )

Amazing coincidences abound. Did you know that Vanilla Ice fortold 9/11? Clear evidence of both ID and the fact that Vanilla Ice is a prophet of God! And if you buy that let's talk about some groovy financial deals...

bill, what exactly did you think my thesis was?

I am not backing down from anything---besides we are talking about G&R's theory, not mine---I can't "back down" from their theory. If they postulate that habitability and measurability are correlated, then it should be obvious to anyone that their theory does not demand that the earth is the best possible observation platform imaginable. You do understand what a correlation is?

To discover that the environments most hospitable to complex observers like us, are also the best places overall for making diverse scientific discoveries, is intrinsically interesting. If the universe were designed for discovery, this is what you would expect. If it were not so designed, you would not expect it. For this and other reasons, we conclude that the best explanation for this correlation is that the universe is designed for discovery.

bill, what exactly did you think my thesis was?

— Edward B.

This being my first posting, let me preface by acknowledging that I am not a biologist or physicist (or a theological philosopher), but an engineer, so I'm a layperson around these parts, though a reasonably educated one.
I'm trying to understand the purpose and consequences of G&R's correlation between observability and habitability as stated in TPP. Please let me know if I'm getting something wrong. I'd appreciate the assistance.

From reading previous posts and the TPP website I have gathered that G&R are saying:
1) Observability and Habitability are related, but there is no specified causal link between the two, and no necessary link to ID, though it's preferred.
2) This theory has utterly decimated the once renowned "tie-breaker" theory.
And
3) Math is a creation of the human mind.

Here are my conclusions so far.
On the surface, statement 1 seems to say that a good place to live is also a good place to see cool stuff, and vice versa. Having lived in Southern California for a little over a year now, I must say I can see their point. I live in a good place, and I get to see lots of cool stuff. However, a statement like that in my high school would have warranted a response of "Thanks, Captain Obvious."
They also seem to be saying that living in the "backwaters of the cosmos" not only gives us a great place to live, but it's a great place to be an observing scientist. This sounds akin to saying Caltech is a lousy place for scientists because there is smog, fires, and earthquakes. Tomorrow I think I'll drive to Pasadena and recommend they move to somewhere in the Ozarks.
The one powerful contribution I see from G&R's theory is the refutation of the entire premise of Star Trek: Insurrection. There could not be an idyllic planet located inside a treacherous nebula . I thought that was a terrible movie, and I'm glad someone has shown it couldn't happen. G&R, I raise a glass to you. I fear Star Trek has much more to lose from the growing power of the ID movement. I foresee G&R going on to demonstrate that aliens could not live in a wormhole, thus ruining DS9, and Mr. Dembski will prove conclusively through his IT that the android Data will never evolve human emotions. There is an upside though, for the eminent philosopher J. Richards will conclude that god himself is a Trekker, since he obviously follows the Prime Directive , thus proving why ID can't test for the existence of their designer.

On to 2. Strangely enough, a google search of "tie-breaker corollary" yielded no results. This leads me to wonder what other postulates ID has in its super secret stash, and if they're willing to share. My understanding of the corollary is that the best explanation ID has for why we can observe stuff from Earth is that on the day that god created the planet, he was in a good mood, so he gave us a nice view to go along with the cool digs. I can see why Mr. Heddle was such a strong believer. It's a little disappointing to learn that god isn't "just cool like that."

Finally, statement 3. I was actually surprised by this one. I would have thought an intelligent designer would need some decent math to create the universe (Did he just guess?), but apparently, math was totally an invention of humans (We rock!). What does this mean to us? I'm not really sure, but I suppose I shouldn't be hiring Steve Steve the panda as an accountant.
Anyway, that's where I am right now, please let me know if I'm straying off somewhere. I'd really like to figure this stuff out.

Lenny, I have answered your question twice.

But you have never answered mine, which is, *ahem*: Why should anyone pay any more attention to your incessant chanting than they should to anyone else's?

Lenny: "In other words, "observations can only be made where observers are able to make observations". Why Lenny, that's just plain dumb.

The earth is a good platform for scientific observation even if nobody was around to take advantage of it.

David, how does the hypothesis of "observability" stand up if it turns out life originated deep in the ocean at deep sea vents, or deep in the soil (perhaps thousands of feet deep)? Of what use is the position to see the universe, planet-wise, when life originates too far beneath the surface to take advantage of it?

What if G&R said the explanation of the correlation is that the uinverse was designed for discovery? Would it not demand the earth is the best possible observation platform, as well as demonstrate, once again, that you do not understand their work?"

Gee, I hope I didn't forget anyone.

OK, I think I can summarise David Heddle's position, and show that it makes sense:

1) Gonzalez is an ID advocate
2) The habitability/observability hypothesis is not ID
3) The habitability/observability hypothesis is deeply flawed in almost every way

See, it is simply an example of an ID advocate performing deeply flawed research. Now isn't that a surprise?

The stated correlation (if it exists) seems, to me at least, to be completely pointless for anyone who isn't an IDiot. Assuming it's all true, and you managed to analyse lots of habitable planets and come up with this correlation, what would it prove? Firstly, of course, as has been pointed out many times before on this thread, correlation isn't equal to causation, so it doesn't have to mean anything at all. So where would scientists go from there? What useful predictions could it make? How could it help us better understand the Universe?

The only way I can see that it could be used is as (monumentally poor) evidence for the intervention of some unknown (OK, very well known) hand in the Universe. Furthermore, that interpretation makes sense in light of the knowledge that Gonzalez is an ID advocate.

Dave H.: You're really kinda, y'know, creepy as well as useless. I doubt even you have the slightest idea whatever the hell you are talking about, or what you deeply believe, since it changes one moment later.
I do get the strong impression that mirrors in your house undoubtedly get a lot of use, what with all the posing you do. Use a pipe, perhaps, looking distinguished or menacingly wise, perhaps?
You vain thing you!

I mean, I'd take on your ideas, but I can't actually find anything but a flimsy box and a lot of 2nd-hand bubble-wrap.

Ah, well, personal attacks ARE beneath me. I'll avoid them unless there is fun to be had with the humor-less.

***

Anyone else feel that the crank-quotient has sky-rocketed recently? The dumbest cretins of the Creationist position(s) do seem to be swarming as the newest, and certainly doomed, court case approaches. Not so much Darwin's Waterloo as ID's version of Custer's Last Stand, 'cept there are any more battles they can win after losing this one.

Although it is true that the Privileged Planet hypothesis could have a naturalistic basis, Gonzalez and Richards include an explicit cosmological ID chapter, even using the metaphor of Q from Star Trek and a "universe creating machine."

— Edward Braun

David, by applying your logic to biological ID, I can also conclude that irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and specified complexity are not ID, since we can conceive of naturalistic methods of obtaining these systems.

The hallmark of ID is the claim "if X, then designed", but we always seem to be able to find, at least in principle, a way of explaining X through naturalistic methods.

David: That's it? That's the tie between eclipses and stellar evolution -- we discovered helium in the Sun 30 years before we re-discovered it in pitchblend and helium is important in stellar evolution? Consider me underwhelmed. I mean, I'll grant you that if we'd discovered it when people started looking at radioactive materials, then it probably wouldn't have been called "helium", but that's exceedingly weak. Stellar evolution is based on two things: nuclear physics and observations of stars at a variety of points in their evolutionary track. If we didn't have the eclipsing moon, then it's quite clear that helium would have been worked out from the combination of the pitchblend measurements and just looking at the periodic table. Further, there are plenty of stars that have hot enough stellar envelopes to display strong helium absorption lines and they were all well known before the nuclear physics side of things really got off the ground. We would have been just fine without the chromosphere measurements.

"Helium is important for stellar evolution and helium was discovered during a total solar eclipse" might play in front of the rubes that make up the target audience for G&R's book, but any astrophysicist should be ashamed to have his name attached to something so ridiculous.

Not to bring it back to Iowa or anything, but in case anyone's interested, the Des Moines Register has an editorial by Avalos and an article on the UNI talk in today's issue. The Iowa State Daily also has a piece.

Not to bring it back to Iowa or anything, but in case anyone's interested, ... The Iowa State Daily also has a piece.

... Olsen said they wanted to make the distinction that this theory is not scientific. She said the university supports Intelligent Design, but feels it should be expressed through other academic avenues...

— ISD

Maybe it's just me, but I think if the goal of an omnipotent Designer (one, in Jon Stewart's immortal words, "with the basic skill set to design an entire Universe") was to give us a habitable place from whence to have a full view of the Cosmos, and allow us to discover stuff about it, the best way to do that would have been to give us a flat earth in a small, hemispherical, geo-centric, fully habitable universe.

Why go through all the trouble to make all this stuff, of which we can at best observe an infinitesimal fraction, then put us in a tiny habitable corner in an overwhelmingly unhinhabitable immensity, so that we can't even hope to ever observe, let alone explore the whole damn' thing?

That leaving aside that anyone peeking through a keyhole in a closed door, and excitedly arguing how miracolously well-positioned the keyhole is to observe everything on the other side, since all we know exists on the other side we can see though the keyhole, would be considered an utter fool.

Hahah. We've always had problems with tenured profs. A while ago (~10 years or so) we had a guy who wanted to blow up the moon. Kept advocating it, saying it would make the weather nice.

Couldn't fire him because he was tenured.

So it's based on science fiction? Have they been taking notes from L. Ron Hubbard?

If it's so easy to study the universe, then I'm sure somebody can tell me what this dark matter and dark energy are. You can, right? I mean, those compose 95% or so of the universe. You said we were perfectly positioned to observe the universe. So they must be easy to study. What are they?

No and no. First of all, what everyone has zeroed in on astronomical observations, but there are terrestrial aspects of their theory, such as volcanism. Many of the observability aspects require tradeoffs. And no, I don't think I misunderstood their work, but I'll ask them. Again, you have to tell me where is the designer in their theory? Their quote from their response to criticism indicates that they attribute the correlation to design, but the correlation stands alone. Regardless of the merits of "habitability is correlated to observability" it easily could be something that a secular physicist came up with.

The correlation between habitability and measurability is the specification. It's the pattern. To discover that habitable environments (i.e., environments compatible with observers like ourselves) are also the most measurable is an intrinsically interesting pattern. It's fishy. "Habitability" and "measurability" are distinct concepts. There's no logical requirement that these two properties must align in every possible universe. So, to discover that they are yoked in our universe is interesting. It's what you would expect if the universe were designed for discovery.

D. Heddle wrote:
Gee, I hope I didn't forget anyone.

You missed me. Would you please berate me with your pseudo-scientific wisdom? #49791, if it helps.

But of course, none of you would want to admit that G&R could do something scientific. So explain how this theory is ID---where, for example, does a designer enter in to the idea that a transparent atmosphere is needed for life, and it also allows for good observations?.

Similarly, even though we don't have an explicit "measurability index," we can still conclude that it's easier to do astronomy with an atmosphere that is relatively transparent to visible light than with one that is translucent or opaque.

Furthermore, it's a good thing women have breasts because otherwise their bras would fall off.

If our planet were not located precisely where it is, then we might also not have AIDS viruses, congenital deformities or death itself. So why do ID proponents think that intelligent life and astronomical observation were the features selected for design? Why don't ID proponents argue that our planet has been positioned where it is so that AIDS viruses, congenital deformities and death could exist? "The Privileged Planet" tries to explain this selection: "When considering universes, everyone recognizes, unless they're trying to avoid a conclusion they find distasteful, that a habitable universe containing intelligent observers has an intrinsic value that an uninhabitable one lacks." And just what is the definition of "intrinsic value"? The book says, "Such value is difficult to define, but we usually know it when we see it." So how do we scientifically measure this "intrinsic value"? Who is the "we" judging "intrinsic value"?

1) Gonzalez is an ID advocate 2) The habitability/observability hypothesis is not ID 3) The habitability/observability hypothesis is deeply flawed in almost every way

David, by applying your logic to biological ID, I can also conclude that irreducible complexity, complex specified information, and specified complexity are not ID, since we can conceive of naturalistic methods of obtaining these systems

David: That's it? That's the tie between eclipses and stellar evolution --- we discovered helium in the Sun 30 years before we re-discovered it in pitchblend and helium is important in stellar evolution? Consider me underwhelmed... any astrophysicist should be ashamed to have his name attached to something so ridiculous.

Mr. Heddle, your argument and that of G&R continue to be simplistic and unwarranted applications of the anthropic principles. We can see through the atmosphere we happen to live in because otherwise we would be dead or undeveloped and unable to ask the question.

You, G & R have done nothing to advance beyond this ancient Paley argument except pontificate. While I appreciate that you may enjoy seeing your words on the screen, it does not contribute anything to the discussion.

As has been pointed out, for any number of reasons, the earth is a terrible observation platform for any number of phenomenon. The fact that it's workable for a small-subset of interesting observations is hardly convincing.

Do you have any actual argument to make? Do G&R? Their fallacy of logic is identical to the one you usually use, and they don't appear to have contributed anything new.

As I said, you're not as interesting as Charlie.

I haven't bothered to read the latest joustings with Sir Heddle, except to note that many posts are actually directed towards him. I find the fact that his idiocy is so attractive to rebuke, while being so dull, juvenile (even infantile), and yet evilly pompous quite amazing.

Why is anyone bothering to engage with such a silly jerk? I mean, would you debate someone like this on the bus? Cracks like him, who deliver not even entertainment, deserve no courtesy (and are perhaps the only sort of people I can say that about.)

We know we were designed because astronomers can see everything they can see? What ELSE could they see? I'm glad G&R are so happy with what they are able to see, since no matter WHERE we happen to be located or WHAT our atmosphere is like, we can STILL see everything we can see, no more and no less. Now, if we could see something that we can't see, THEN I'd be impressed.

The theological arguments that crop up in these parts all have an interesting property: they assert P as the justification for the first step of the argument and not P to justify the last step. For example, the cosmological argument is premised on the principle that everything has a cause, but the conclusion is reached by asserting that it must be the case that at least one thing doesn't have a cause.

Arguments from fine tuning have the same peculiar logic/nonlogic.

The first part of the argument draws conclusions from the laws of physics as if they were pretty much set in stone--the laws had to be just so in order for the universe to have come out as it has--yet the second part of the argument argues the reverse, i.e. that God is the master of nature and could have made any universe he chose to, including, presumably, a universe in which the choice of initial conditions isn't very critical. Either God is constrained by the nature of things or he isn't, but to make the design argument work, one must sometimes believer P and sometimes not P. If you had argued like that in high school geometry, you'd have flunked.

Theology makes people simple-minded.

David: Those goalposts just keep on shifting, don't they? First, it was that habitability was "correlated" with being an "extraordinary observation platform". When folks pointed out that there were actually much better places for doing astronomy both now and in the past, the claim morphed again. Now, it's just that habitable regions also happened to be places where you can see out of the galaxy, which is about as slack a claim as you can get.

While that was going on, you threw out a claim about all the "knowledge we have learned about stellar evolution from eclipses". That "knowledge" ended up being the discovery of helium during a solar eclipse. This is much akin to talking about the vital knowledge about Galactic structure we gained from the Blitz because the radar arrays developed to defend the UK were later used for radio astronomy which in turn led to mapping the hydrogen 21cm emission from the Galactic spiral arms. It's a ridiculous claim, so you retreated to talking about the chromosphere, which is about the only thing that would be really hard to get a handle on were it not for nearly perfect eclipses. Are eclipses occasionally handy for other observations? Sure. Are they required for looking at anything but the chromosphere? No. Did they actually tell us anything unique about stellar evolution? Don't be absurd.

I shared your stellar evolution from eclipses lunacy with a couple of the other astronomers here at lunch, asking them to name the knowledge about stellar evolution we gained from eclipses. Both of them got sort of a bewildered chuckle out of the "Helium" answer until I told them that an actual professor of astronomy came up with the argument. Then, they were just confused that someone with an actual astronomy background would come up with something so sad.

(1) I am a Calvinist and we know about such things and (2) I am a follower of the true religion, not a false religion such as Islam.

Furthermore, it's a good thing women have breasts because otherwise their bras would fall off.

Lenny, you are the liar, sir.

I have given you two answers to your Krishna chant: (1) I am a Calvinist and we know about such things and (2) I am a follower of the true reliogion, not a false religion such as Islam.

Okay, can we please take the personal attacks down at least a notch, and get the focus on the, er, "science" of ID instead? Thanks.

David Heddle Point 1 (the ID intention) is irrelevant, because a person's motives are not supposed to matter when judging their science.

David Heddle Point 1 (the ID intention) is irrelevant, because a person's motives are not supposed to matter when judging their science.

I await a response from G&R as to whether they view their core postulate from PP to be ID, or whether they have merely embedded it into an ID framework. We'll see. However, since the postulate is (in principle) testable---if it is ID, then we have an long awaited ID prediction---which is that a cataloging of locations hospitable for complex life will show a correlation with observability.

Why put observatories in space? Most telescopes are on the ground. On the ground, you can deploy a heavier telescope and upgrade it more easily. The trouble is that Earth-bound telescopes must look through the Earth's atmosphere. First, the Earth's atmosphere blocks out a broad range of the electromagnetic spectrum, allowing a narrow band of visible light to reach the surface. Telescopes which explore the Universe using light beyond the visible spectrum, such as those onboard the Compton Observatory (gamma rays), the ASCA satellite (x-rays), or the new ultraviolet and infrared instruments on the above-pictured Hubble Space Telescope (HST), need to be carried above the absorbing atmosphere. Second, the Earth's atmosphere blurs the light it lets through. The blurring is caused by varying density and continual motion of air. By orbiting above the Earth's atmosphere, the Hubble can get clearer images. In fact, even though HST has a mirror 15 times smaller than large Earth-bound telescopes, it can still resolve detail almost 100 times finer.

Lenny's posts are like flatulence in that they befoul the air for a few moments but then quickly dissipate because they lack any substance. Moreover, if combined Ed Brayton and Lenny you would still be left with a mediocre intellect.

I have studied astrophysics for 35 years and I have a PhD.

Who cares. I am familiar with David Heddle's vita and I think it is praiseworthy. What are you doing in Sugarland with your PhD?

The point is, however, that you have no evidence whatever that anything can be tuned - you are simply rehashing a very old, and intellectually discredited argument from the anthropic principle here. Given that we exist and are asking the question, the probabliy of all these 'fine-tunings' occuring is 1. Just 1. 100%. Your blindness to the actual logic of the issue is interesting.

Mr. O'Brien.

Would this be the same Robert O'Brien that Ed Brayton named his "Idiot of Month Award" for? I assume so. It would explain the unexpected hostile mention of someone who hasn't even been a part of this discussion.

Have you anything to contribute to this discussion? Of course, with your towering intellect (so much greater than that of any mere biologist) perhaps you could put an end to this thread. All it would require is some sort of actual, testable predictions of Intelligent Design (biological variety, please). Of course, this would require positive statements, not simply rewarmed creationist arguments about supposed faults in evolutionary biology. What do you say? Help us mental midgets out.

David Heddle- Since you won't say the observability/habitability correlation is even correct in your opinion, and since it isn't ID, why should we care about it? You introduced it in a post saying it precluded the "tiebreaker corollary" but provided no evidence to indicate how this supposed correlation is either necessary or sufficient to discredit cosmological ID.

Then to top it off, you talk about how if it is ID this is a testable claim of IDers.

You haven't answered my questions. What is your point? Why, in your opinion, should we care about the habitability-observability correlation? Do you think it is accurate, and do you think it is a testable claim supporting cosmo ID? And if so, how can you quantify habitability and observability, in order to find a correlation, or are these categorical rather than numerical measurements? As before, I humbly beg that you please share all the great insights you have unloaded from the boat the rest of us sadly missed out on.

And btw, did everyone notice the trackback Robert OBrien put on this thread. The young man actually put his last 3 comments on his blog.

(Note--since those comments were merely a repeat of what he said here, I removed the ping. That's poor netiquette, Robert.--Tara)

It is very impressive that Robert O'Brien takes time from teaching Dr. Rachev about Kantorovich metrics to tell all the low-intellect contributors to PT how they do not understand this or that. Hopefully he'll be ready soon to explain Kantorovich metrics here on PT. Or perhaps he may first visit a doctor to get some pills curing mental deficiency.

"Point 1 (the ID intention) is irrelevant, because a person's motives are not supposed to matter when judging their science."

I think David might be right here if the criticisms of ID/C intent regarded their science. They do no science. Intent becomes very relevant when the motivation is religious, political, philosophical, or educational.

"How many probability and statistics courses have you taken? I doubt as many as I have."

Robert, how does repeating the same course over-and-over make one an expert?

Yes, we do claim that the correlation between habitability and measurability is ID. It can be framed using Dembski's explanatory filter: the number of cases and their complexity is the "complexity" part and the correlation is the "specification". In our case, though, we are talking about the design of the universe and Earth is an instantiation of the general correlation. Dembski's filter is designed with things contained in the universe rather than the universe as a whole. What we eliminate is "logical necessity" not "physical necessity". See our response to Kyler Kuehn's criticisms on www.privilegedplanet.com.

We are not saying that Earth was the specific result of miracles, but that it is a result of the outworking of the design imbedded in the universe. Of course, saying that the Earth is a great place for science and life but without having the correlation could have been evidence for direct miracles, but that is not the situation we observe.

I shared your stellar evolution from eclipses lunacy with a couple of the other astronomers here at lunch, asking them to name the knowledge about stellar evolution we gained from eclipses. Both of them got sort of a bewildered chuckle out of the "Helium" answer until I told them that an actual professor of astronomy came up with the argument. Then, they were just confused that someone with an actual astronomy background would come up with something so sad.

We know we were designed because astronomers can see everything they can see? What ELSE could they see?

I think Dave's getting a bit testy since everyone's piling on him here plus he was just kicked out of Pharyngula a couple days ago.

but provided no evidence to indicate how this supposed correlation is either necessary or sufficient to discredit cosmological ID.

Why, in your opinion, should we care about the habitability-observability correlation?

Do you think it is accurate, and do you think it is a testable claim supporting cosmo ID? And if so, how can you quantify habitability and observability, in order to find a correlation, or are these categorical rather than numerical measurements?

Gee Arden, even Lenny (I think), by not accepting my answers (1) and (2) recognized that they were given merely to dismiss him and not to be taken seriously.

I stand corrected, based on private communication with Gonzalez. He has informed me that they do consider the correlation to be ID.