Scientific Integrity: Science, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Actually, this statement was released back in September of last year. I remember seeing it months ago on the UCS website.

I'm hardpressed to think of even a single trivial contribution that Intelligent Design has made to science.

indeed, the extreme animal rights groups up in Berkeley were idiots, but at least a better appreciation of proper animal husbandry came out of their "efforts".

I think you're right. I too cannot think of a singled, blasted, thing that the concept of intelligent design has contributed to science.

OTOH, I think it safe to say that it HAS created activists out of a lot of scientists, who have finally tired of the BS these morons are pushing.

so, no contribution to science, but a backhanded contribution to scientists, I guess, and in the end that will positively contribute to science.

kind of like thanking garbage for igniting interest in creating garbage dumps.

Stanton,if you can't think of a single blasted thing that ID has contributed, it may be your inability to think. That is such an irresponsible and ignorant statement!
Ishthyic,you may join with Stanton except that you electrify the response by injecting the good old evol practise of name calling ( idiots, garbage and morons). This adds so much more quality to the discussion while openly demonstrating your ignorance! Your last statement is prophetic while being pathetic i.e. thanking name calling for igniting interest in creating more name calling as a means of illustrating how evols need to scrape the bottom of the barrel in a futile and ineffective way to convince with out adding substance to the debate.

Ronald Cote said:
Stanton,if you can’t think of a single blasted thing that ID has contributed, it may be your inability to think. That is such an irresponsible and ignorant statement!

Ronald - please go ahead and list the contributions of ID.

LOL

yeah, that WAS pretty funny!

"you guys are just ignorant of the many things that ID has contributed to science! Like, um.... well, I can't think of any, but you guys are just WRONG!!!!!"

Ronald Cote: Stanton,if you can't think of a single blasted thing that ID has contributed, it may be your inability to think. That is such an irresponsible and ignorant statement!

Ishthyic,you may join with Stanton except that you electrify the response by injecting the good old evol practise of name calling ( idiots, garbage and morons). This adds so much more quality to the discussion while openly demonstrating your ignorance!

Your last statement is prophetic while being pathetic i.e. thanking name calling for igniting interest in creating more name calling as a means of illustrating how evols need to scrape the bottom of the barrel in a futile and ineffective way to convince with out adding substance to the debate.

Ichthyic: LOL yeah, that WAS pretty funny! "you guys are just ignorant of the many things that ID has contributed to science! Like, um.... well, I can't think of any, but you guys are just WRONG!!!!!"

Hmm. How come IDiots are so eager to learn and parrot what scientists and informed persons have to say about pseudoscientific movements and antiscientific creationism in particular, but lose interest as soon as it comes to learning the science itself?

I second that - Ronald, name a single result from ID that is identifiable testable science and has been accepted by biology as a fruitful contribution.

Better yet, describe how the biologists you address fail to be cognisant of their own subject.

Ronald - please go ahead and list the contributions of ID.

In other words, Ronald, yes, I freely admit that I have called you an "idiot," and have made frequent, blatant inferences that you are dishonest, as, they are responses to the facts that you have, on all of the occasions that I have come into contact with you, displayed (and continue to display) a gross ignorance of biology and of evolution that contradicted your boastful claims of having had a biology education, and of once being an "evolutionist," as well as claiming that On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life did not explain speciation, but promoted racism. When I countered this claim, as well as making the point that, by making a claim like yours, you never read the book before, you, in turn, responded with "that's stupid."

And yes, I bring these things up every time, so that way, people know that you are a liar who Lies for Jesus Even Though Jesus Doesn't Like It When People Lie For Him, and that nothing you say is trustworthy.

bjm:

Ronald - please go ahead and list the contributions of ID.

This could be worth waiting for - Behe and Dembski haven't figured that out yet! [Nitpicking but shouldn't the request for 'a' contribution, just to give them a chance?]

Ronald, you are the perfect representative for ID.
How about answering a few questions for us?

Is ID a scientific theory?
What contributions has ID made to science?
What research is going on now in the wonderful world of ID?

Go ahead. Please. Pretty please.

I do have to go and agree that ID is not a legitimate science because there is no factual evidence to go and support it. Seriously when did we let the stupid and uninformed(preachers, rabbis, and imams) go and dictate what we should be teaching? ID is not a legitimate science because it is taught with a clear agenda to indoctrinate people to believe in God. The fact is this it is not a legitimate science taught by scientists and no biblical scholars and biblical science do not even count worth fucking shit.

I do have to go and agree that ID is not a legitimate science because there is no factual evidence to go and support it. Seriously when did we let the stupid and uninformed(preachers, rabbis, and imams) go and dictate what we should be teaching? ID is not a legitimate science because it is taught with a clear agenda to indoctrinate people to believe in God. The fact is this it is not a legitimate science taught by scientists and no biblical scholars and biblical science do not even count.

John Wright said, "ID is not a legitimate science because it is taught with a clear agenda to indoctrinate people to believe in God."

No, that statement isn't correct. ID is not a legitimate science because it doesn't have any testable hypotheses. Its position is, "if it looks designed, it is designed and since the Intelligent Designer is beyond our petty, human understanding, there's nothing more we can do. (Except harrass legitimate scientists and science teachers and try to get money out of church groups, of course.)"

I've known several scientists who truly believed that having an understanding and appreciation of the natural world would bring people closer to God. But since these scientists proceeded according to the accepted scientific protocol of formulating testable hypotheses and rejecting the ones that failed, their results were still perfectly congruent with those of scientists who were committed atheists, or who didn't care one way or the other.

Ronald - please go ahead and list the contributions of ID.

— Richard

actually providing an example of a trivial contribution that Intelligent Design has made to Science?

heddle: Stanton,

actually providing an example of a trivial contribution that Intelligent Design has made to Science?

That is very difficult. However, one example might be the idea of galactic habitability zones. But I think that one would be hard pressed to argue that that was an ID result—although one might easily argue that it was ID motivated. In peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject, Gonzalez is generally given credit for the concept of large scale habitability zones, and the mere existence of such papers indicates that the concept has exceeded the “trivial” threshold.

If the idea of galactic habitability zones weren’t a result of applying Intelligent Design “theory,” then how could it have been motivated by Intelligent Design “theory”?

heddle:

actually providing an example of a trivial contribution that Intelligent Design has made to Science?

That is very difficult. However, one example might be the idea of galactic habitability zones. But I think that one would be hard pressed to argue that that was an ID result—although one might easily argue that it was ID motivated. In peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject, Gonzalez is generally given credit for the concept of large scale habitability zones, and the mere existence of such papers indicates that the concept has exceeded the “trivial” threshold.

Flint: I personally suspect that the "large scale habitibility zones" are quite speculative and based on numerous assumptions we have no way to validate. But they CAN be construed to imply that the Earth has passed another test required to produce (ahem) us, so Gonzalez' god gets another feather in His cap. If scientific theory should later show that these habilitability zones only shape the construction of life in various parts of the galaxy, then "ID theory" can easily "unpredict" whatever is required.

For you to, on the one hand, make the distinction between the result and the motivation, and then to go on and imply that ID-creationism “theory” has met some kind of “peer-review” threshold seems suspect to me. It seems like you’re trying to have it both ways.

heddle said:

That is very difficult. However, one example might be the idea of galactic habitability zones. But I think that one would be hard pressed to argue that that was an ID result—although one might easily argue that it was ID motivated. In peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject, Gonzalez is generally given credit for the concept of large scale habitability zones, and the mere existence of such papers indicates that the concept has exceeded the “trivial” threshold.

So should we take this as a 'no' correct?
Are there any other examples of the contributions ID has made?
Would someone get tenure at an university if they had as much as ID to show for their efforts?

yet another example of ID-creationism trying to have it both ways

Torbjörn Larsson, OM,

Huh? I'm sorry, was someone here discussing The Privileged Planet? I thought the Gonzalez discussion, such as it was, was about something completely different, not even on the same length scale: Galactic Habitability zones. That has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not planets form efficiently (which I agree is rather cool.)

heddle: I implied no such thing. Stanton set the bar very low, a "trivial contribution"--not a prediction, not a result, etc. Well, galactic habitability zones are discussed in peer-reviewed papers and so I suggested that they are more than trivial; they are of actual scientific interest. I also suggested that they could not be easily argued as ID results, but possibly as motivated by ID, which only Gonzalez can answer. If you are suggesting that I am implying some sort of peer review threshold for ID theory was surpassed, then you attributing far more meaning to my comment that the actual words I wrote would warrant.

It should be said that such “trivial contributions” as you mention can also be obtained if I invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a “motivation” for studying galactic habital zones. ‘Nuff said.

Heddle, if even you are unsure whether or not Gonzales was motivated by Intelligent Design when he proposed the galactic habitability zone hypothesis, we can not say that ID has passed beyond the threshold of trivial contribution, in fact, until someone specifically asks him about whether or not he was motivated by Intelligent Design to formulate that hypothesis.

I think Gonzales saying there may be habital zones is very different than an ID contribution to science. When Behe suggests common descent is true hardly represents an ID contribution to "darwinism"

Heddle put down the crack pipe.

What is so special about “habitability zones”, other than to note that given a suitable collection of elements and gravity in the right energy range, creatures similar to us could survive? The universe is pretty big and diverse, so why should anyone be surprised if there are zones in which life approximating what we know might possibly exist?

It seems that suggesting anything more than this is analogous to a couple of mud puddles looking around, noting that every puddle they observe exactly matches its “habitability zone”, and concluding that some intelligence must be involved.

I would suggest that ID had nothing to do with the idea appearing in scientific literature (somehow implying that ID motivated the contribution). Attempting to characterize and locate such zones is simply a way to narrow the search for life, as we know it, in other places in the universe. This thought process was going on long before the clowns at the Discovery Institute tried to grab the limelight.

Speaking of the amazing predictive powers of IDC, it seems WAD has a whole list of them and is teasing his fellow cultists into sharing theirs with him before he shares his with them.

Be the first on your block to read the amazing predictive powers of IDC ("ID's predective prowess") -
http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/ids-predictive-prowess/

The contributions so far are simply amazing. You can tell their is some cutting edge science going on at UD these days.

I meant there :-)

Mr_Christopher: I meant there :-)

I am quite taken with Ward & Brownlee(?)'s Rare Earth. I believe that Peter Ward gave some credit to Gonzalez for some of the ideas. In any case, the astronomic observations make the situation quite clear: Only the middle third of so of the galaxy can possibly support life-as-we-know it.

As for even rarer matters, the earth has a large moon. So large it might almost be considered a double planet. Within a star's life-zone, this might well be exceedingly rare. Without a good understanding (yet) of abiogenesis, the importance of having a large moon is not (yet) clear.

P.S. abiogenesis is not in the spell-checker.

heddle: Matthew Lowry,

It should be said that such “trivial contributions” as you mention can also be obtained if I invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a “motivation” for studying galactic habital zones. ‘Nuff said.

No, it can't. Because while it may be possible that Gonzalez had ID as a motivation for looking into such problems (I have no clue if he did) I suspect you cannot find a scientist who actually used the FSM theology as a motivation for any astrophysical research. The analogy works, but only so far--because there are real-life scientists who are honest-to-goodness theists, but no real life scientists who believe the FSM is an actual deity.

David B. Benson: I am quite taken with Ward & Brownlee(?)'s Rare Earth. I believe that Peter Ward gave some credit to Gonzalez for some of the ideas. In any case, the astronomic observations make the situation quite clear: Only the middle third of so of the galaxy can possibly support life-as-we-know it.

David B. Benson: I am quite taken with Ward & Brownlee(?)'s Rare Earth. I believe that Peter Ward gave some credit to Gonzalez for some of the ideas. In any case, the astronomic observations make the situation quite clear: Only the middle third of so of the galaxy can possibly support life-as-we-know it.

Matthew Lowry:

heddle: Matthew Lowry,

It should be said that such “trivial contributions” as you mention can also be obtained if I invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a “motivation” for studying galactic habital zones. ‘Nuff said.

No, it can't. Because while it may be possible that Gonzalez had ID as a motivation for looking into such problems (I have no clue if he did) I suspect you cannot find a scientist who actually used the FSM theology as a motivation for any astrophysical research. The analogy works, but only so far--because there are real-life scientists who are honest-to-goodness theists, but no real life scientists who believe the FSM is an actual deity.

I know plenty of Pastafarians who are motivated in their scientific work by their worship of our Noodly Master! How dare you insult our religious beliefs like this. You'd better watch out, or we'll go after your local school board like we did in Polk County, Florida! And how do you know the Almighty FSM isn't an "actual deity", anyway? What is the criteria for determining an "actual" deity from a "fake" deity? Is Thor, Odin, or Loki real? Osiris, Ra, or Isis? Yahweh? How about the Buddha? Jesus Christ? Fukurokuju or any of the other Shinto gods of luck? Allah? Michael Jordan? Google? Perhaps there is a process of supernatural selection at work that determines the "real" from the "unreal" deities? Inquiring minds want to know. Please... please do grace us all with your definition and method of determining a "real" deity from an "unreal" one. This should be really good. Btw, this link seems to show that your friend Gonzales didn't have anything to do with the proposal of galactic habitable zones. It states that the concept of a habitable zone was first proposed 1959 by Philip Morrison and Giuseppe Cocconi in a SETI research paper. In 1961, Frank Drake popularized the concept in his Drake equation. No where in this article is there any mention of Gonzales. Furthermore, when I looked up more info on Gonzales, it shows that he is a "proponent" of the galactic habitable zone concept, not the pioneer you make him out to be. Sloppy work heddle, you have to do much better than that to pass the class.

"The champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we're on the lookout for very simple signals. That's mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."

It states that the concept of a habitable zone was first proposed 1959 by Philip Morrison and Giuseppe Cocconi in a SETI research paper. In 1961, Frank Drake popularized the concept in his Drake equation. No where in this article is there any mention of Gonzales.

Btw, this link seems to show that your friend Gonzales didn’t have anything to do with the proposal of galactic habitable zones. It states that the concept of a habitable zone was first proposed 1959 by Philip Morrison and Giuseppe Cocconi in a SETI research paper. In 1961, Frank Drake popularized the concept in his Drake equation. No where in this article is there any mention of Gonzales. Furthermore, when I looked up more info on Gonzales, it shows that he is a “proponent” of the galactic habitable zone concept, not the pioneer you make him out to be. Sloppy work heddle, you have to do much better than that to pass the class.

So I know for a fact that neither Gonzales nor any of the other IDiots had anything to do with introducing such an idea into the scientific literature.

The concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) was introduced a few years ago as an extension of the much older concept of Circumstellar Habitable Zone. However, the physical processes underlying the former concept are hard to identify and even harder to quantify. That difficulty does not allow us, at present, to draw any significant conclusions about the extent of the GHZ: it may well be that the entire Milky Way disk is suitable for complex life.

Habitability on a larger scale was considered a few years ago, by Gonzalez et al. (2001) who introduced the concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ).

heddle: Gosh, please do a little homework. The very definitive source you quoted (wikipedia) doesn't say what you claim--it gives Morrison and Giuseppe credit for a much simpler concept, the idea of a habitability zone within a solar system. Galactic Habitability Zones are areas within a galaxy. They are completely different concepts.

I would be very embarrassed to use the term IDiot in the midst of an idiotic statement. You guys could have at least opened the link at the bottom of the wikipedia article on "On the Galactic Habitability Zone" (Thanks, I didn't know about this preprint.)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612316 and taken a look at the article. It is from 2006. This astrophysicist must not have known what you guys do, and especially not what Mike Elzinga knows "as a fact." The abstract states:

The concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) was introduced a few years ago as an extension of the much older concept of Circumstellar Habitable Zone. However, the physical processes underlying the former concept are hard to identify and even harder to quantify. That difficulty does not allow us, at present, to draw any significant conclusions about the extent of the GHZ: it may well be that the entire Milky Way disk is suitable for complex life.

The second paragraph of the article reads

Habitability on a larger scale was considered a few years ago, by Gonzalez et al. (2001) who introduced the concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ).

I have not read the rest of the article (I plan to.) I just clicked the link at the bottom of the wikipedia page you cite as proof that Gonzalez did not introduce the GHZ concept. Now, it seems, based on the abstract, that the author will draw different conclusions about the GHZ. But that is besides the point. The points are: (1) the GHZ is a topic of scientific interest and (2) Gonzalez is credited with introducing it.

For crying out loud-- do some basic homework before you make assertions about a topic. At least understand what the GHZ argument is about and stop confusing it with a different concept. The GHZ and the one you are confusing it with, the circumstellar habitability zone, are on vastly different length scales, involve different concepts affecting habitability, and are independently right or wrong.

heddle: Gosh, please do a little homework. The very definitive source you quoted (wikipedia) doesn't say what you claim--it gives Morrison and Giuseppe credit for a much simpler concept, the idea of a habitability zone within a solar system. Galactic Habitability Zones are areas within a galaxy. They are completely different concepts.

I would be very embarrassed to use the term IDiot in the midst of an idiotic statement. You guys could have at least opened the link at the bottom of the wikipedia article on "On the Galactic Habitability Zone" (Thanks, I didn't know about this preprint.)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612316 and taken a look at the article. It is from 2006. This astrophysicist must not have known what you guys do, and especially not what Mike Elzinga knows "as a fact." The abstract states:

The concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) was introduced a few years ago as an extension of the much older concept of Circumstellar Habitable Zone. However, the physical processes underlying the former concept are hard to identify and even harder to quantify. That difficulty does not allow us, at present, to draw any significant conclusions about the extent of the GHZ: it may well be that the entire Milky Way disk is suitable for complex life.

The second paragraph of the article reads

Habitability on a larger scale was considered a few years ago, by Gonzalez et al. (2001) who introduced the concept of Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ).

I have not read the rest of the article (I plan to.) I just clicked the link at the bottom of the wikipedia page you cite as proof that Gonzalez did not introduce the GHZ concept. Now, it seems, based on the abstract, that the author will draw different conclusions about the GHZ. But that is besides the point. The points are: (1) the GHZ is a topic of scientific interest and (2) Gonzalez is credited with introducing it.

For crying out loud-- do some basic homework before you make assertions about a topic. At least understand what the GHZ argument is about and stop confusing it with a different concept. The GHZ and the one you are confusing it with, the circumstellar habitability zone, are on vastly different length scales, involve different concepts affecting habitability, and are independently right or wrong.

Question for heddle:

You have yet to tell me how you would propose to distinguish a "fake" deity (as you claim the FSM to be) from a "real" one (such as Google ;-)

As I mentioned before, I really like the concept of supernatural selection - tasty!

Btw, I'm currently reading that article on GHZ - pretty fascinating stuff - plenty of mention so far of galactic evolution, and no mention yet of galactic intelligent design. I'll get back to the PT blog on it when I'm finished.

Now that it's been proven that Gonzalez did promote the galactic habitability zone hypothesis, we should move on to figuring out the question of "if the idea of galactic habitability zones weren’t a result of applying Intelligent Design “theory,” then how could it have been motivated by Intelligent Design “theory”?"

After all, if a scientist is motivated by a theory or hypothesis, wouldn't that mean that the scientist would attempt to apply that theory or hypothesis to his/her/its work?

It should be said that such “trivial contributions” as you mention can also be obtained if I invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a “motivation” for studying galactic habital zones.

And how do you know the Almighty FSM isn’t an “actual deity”, anyway? What is the criteria for determining an “actual” deity from a “fake” deity? Is Thor, Odin, or Loki real? Osiris, Ra, or Isis? Yahweh? How about the Buddha? Jesus Christ? Fukurokuju or any of the other Shinto gods of luck? Allah? Michael Jordan? Google?

Did I mention that I teach astronomy?

we should move on to figuring out the question of “if the idea of galactic habitability zones weren’t a result of applying Intelligent Design “theory,” then how could it have been motivated by Intelligent Design “theory”?”

heddle:

And how do you know the Almighty FSM isn’t an “actual deity”, anyway? What is the criteria for determining an “actual” deity from a “fake” deity? Is Thor, Odin, or Loki real? Osiris, Ra, or Isis? Yahweh? How about the Buddha? Jesus Christ? Fukurokuju or any of the other Shinto gods of luck? Allah? Michael Jordan? Google?

As I said, you are pushing the analogy too far--if you are being serious.

While it is entirely conceivable that Gonzalez or Collins use their theism as motivation for science

it is not actually possible at this time that someone uses the FSM, at least in the same sense, because the whole point of the FSM is that it is as contrived and unfalsifiable mocking of people who believe in one of the great monotheism deities. But of course, people like Gonzalez and Collins really do believe, and so can be motivated, while the FSM acolytes acknowledge that they are simply making fun, not taking FSM seriously. The point is not that you cannot "prove" God any more than you can prove the FSM, I acknowledge that, but that people actually believe and worship God, while they don't really believe or really worship the FSM, except in jest.

As for the paper, I'm sure you'll find nothing about ID in it. Nor did I claim you would, nor does a lack of such findings invalidate the modest claims I made, which were, again 1) GHZ is a legitimate scientific topic and (2) Gonzalez gets credited for it and (3) Gonzalez might claim ID as a motivation.

No. Did I mention I was a physics professor?

Here is what I think. A sensible person would say: Gonzalez has done some solid science. It may not be enough for tenure at ISU, but he has undeniably made some contributions. And in fact, from publications and citations I'd say Gonzalez has a better academic record than almost all his critics on PT.

Now again, I understand that a sensible person might also say that his record is not good enough for tenure. But what I tend to see on PT is this:

1) ID is not science and very, very bad. (Not saying I disagree.)

2) Gonzalez is associated with ID (undeniable)

3) Therefore everything Gonzalez has done is "nonsense" or "obvious" or "has been done before." In any case, it seems, Gonzalez must not receive any credit whatsoever. But the only reason for 3) is that you (PTers) do not want to allow for the possibility that an IDer has done good science.

I'll give another example. Weinberg used anthropic arguments to "predict" a tiny but non-zero value for the cosmological constant. Weinberg is an atheist. But you could easily imagine that an IDer could have beaten him to the punch--he could have used ID arguments to "predict" a small cosmological constant. Now neither anthropic arguments nor ID are science, but either can be used as motivation.

heddle: ... the whole point of the FSM is that it is as (sic) contrived and unfalsifiable mocking of people who believe in one of the great monotheism deities.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Cool! A kindred spirit - as I’m new here, I don’t know how many physics/astronomy types hang out on the PT blog, so I’m glad to know there are at least two of us.

No. The point of the FSM is to educate, not to mock. The target of FSM is not believers, but believers who insist on having their personal deity introduced into science classes.

The notion of a GHZ is well-motivated by astronomy and astrophysics, a combination of observations and soundly established theory. If Gonzalez was the first to clearly state this concept, he certainly deserves credit for that, irrespective of other matters.

By way of comparison, consider some of Newton's beliefs.

about something completely different, not even on the same length scale: Galactic Habitability zones

The GHZ concept is relevant to both astrobiology and ID. The GHZ is another factor that must be included in any calculation of the probability of ETI in the Milky Way Galaxy. As we show in The Privileged Planet the GHZ is not only the most habitable location in the Milky Way, it is also the best location for doing astronomy research. This is part of a broader pattern of evidence for design we discuss in The Privileged Planet. [My emphasis.]

heddle: Brian McEnnis,

No. The point of the FSM is to educate, not to mock. The target of FSM is not believers, but believers who insist on having their personal deity introduced into science classes.

Some people didn't get that memo, since I've been FSM proselytized a gazillion times, and I have never advocated ID in science classes.

How do galactic habitable zones follow from an ID hypothesis? Since ID states that we can infer nothing about the intentions of the designer, from what are GHZs inferred?

because the whole point of the FSM is that it is as contrived and unfalsifiable mocking of people who believe in one of the great monotheism deities.

people actually believe and worship God, while they don’t really believe or really worship the FSM, except in jest.

Brian McEnnis:

heddle: ... the whole point of the FSM is that it is as (sic) contrived and unfalsifiable mocking of people who believe in one of the great monotheism deities.

No. The point of the FSM is to educate, not to mock. The target of FSM is not believers, but believers who insist on having their personal deity introduced into science classes.

H. Humbert: How do galactic habitable zones follow from an ID hypothesis? Since ID states that we can infer nothing about the intentions of the designer, from what are GHZs inferred?

H. Humbert: How do galactic habitable zones follow from an ID hypothesis? Since ID states that we can infer nothing about the intentions of the designer, from what are GHZs inferred?

Weinberg used anthropic arguments to “predict” a tiny but non-zero value for the cosmological constant. Weinberg is an atheist.

In fact, Susskind uses the anthropic principle to argue against the concept of ID. That was a new one to me.

So Heddle was wrong to cite GHZs as one example of a useful scientific contribution stemming from ID theory. Even Heddle's weaker claim--that Gonzalez (not Heddle himself) might credit ID as being useful in formulating GHZs--is irrelevant, since it clearly can't. Heddle is indeed attempting to dodge the question of ID's scientific relevance and instead equate ID as a "guiding philosophy" or framework, but even that fails under scrutiny, since ID does not allow one to make assumptions about the designer(s)'s intentions.

No, once again we're talking religion here. Gonzalez's Christianity leads him to assume a human-centric universe, nothing else. It is certainly not a prediction which follows from ID, which remains scientifically sterile.

So you are claiming that Galactic Habitability zones aren’t part of the Privileged Planet book and/or concept?

But that isn’t essential - the same type of probability discussions are involved in GHZ

Torbjörn Larsson, OM:

According to Gonzalez: The GHZ concept is relevant to both astrobiology and ID. The GHZ is another factor that must be included in any calculation of the probability of ETI in the Milky Way Galaxy. As we show in The Privileged Planet the GHZ is not only the most habitable location in the Milky Way, it is also the best location for doing astronomy research. This is part of a broader pattern of evidence for design we discuss in The Privileged Planet. [My emphasis.]

So Gonzalez himself doesn't think they are completely different. I haven't read the book so I couldn't say.

But that isn't essential - the same type of probability discussions are involved in GHZ (likely as likelihoods) and the Rare Earth hypotesis (probably as probabilities) that Gonzalez use as support, which was what I was reacting to.

It was a bona fide falsifiable prediction,

heddle: Matthew Lowry, I don't think the GHZ argument assumes "life like us." I think it makes broad assumptions like "no complex life can withstand the kind of intense radiation that a nearby supernova would produce," etc.

Heddle is indeed attempting to dodge the question of ID’s scientific relevance and instead equate ID as a “guiding philosophy” or framework, but even that fails under scrutiny,

Weinberg didn’t use absence of gods as an inspiration for using an anthropic principle to predict a value. [Why the scare crow? It was a bona fide falsifiable prediction, it just isn’t a theory by itself as the specific procedure (or the general principle) can’t be used to derive all other related predictions as it must. Yet.] He used the presence of natural hypotheses and observations.

Hypothetically speaking, if Gonzalez came here and said: “My ID caused me to believe that a benevolent omnipotent designer would design a benign environment in the midst of a hostile universe...

...so I began thinking that there must be special “oases” in a largely life-unfriendly universe, so I came to the idea than maybe we can show scientifically that only a certain zone in the galaxy is life-friendly,” that would be a crystal-clear statement that his research in GHZ was motivated by ID. Would you simply tell him he is wrong, and in spite of what he thinks, his research was not motivated by ID? That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

What I am saying is the comments you made earlier on plate tectonics are irrelevant for a discussion on GHZs, as far as I can tell

It has to do with things like sufficient metals to produce rocky planets, low stellar density for low ambient radiation and so that life is not repeatedly extinguished by a nearby super novae, stable galactic orbits for the star, etc.

Okay, I will try to find time to answer the comment about Weinberg later.

Ward/Brownlee, Rare Earth, 2003.
Gonzalez/Richards, Privileged Planet, 2004.

Both contain the GHZ hypothesis, for which Ward & Brownlee credit Gonzalez (along with other ideas).

Rare Earth is speculative astrobiology and well worth your while. Privileged Planet is not even good science, in some spots.

While fun to speculate about life-other-than-we-know-it, the necessities of physics and chemistry (such as some free energy, but not too much) severely constrain the possibilities. Indeed, even silicon-based seems a bit far-fetched, IMHO.

In any case, the Rare Earth arguments point out that long ago and far in the future, life is impossible. That leaves around now, plus or minus several billions of years. The next limit is the GHZ hypothesis. Ward/Brownlee/Gonzalez apparently did not know of results showing that star orbits in barred spiral galaxies always track through the center, thus eliminating the possibility of life in such galaxies (too much free energy in the form of hard radiation in the center).

So Ward/Brownlee work their way down to piddly little class G0 star as being sufficiently stable, etc. It seems quite reasonable to me, nothing ID about it.

heddle: Matthew Lowry, I might be wrong, but I don't think that assumption like "there is a threshold of radiation--far exceeding anything naturally occurring on earth, beyond which we can reasonably assume that no complex life exists" or "complex life requires heavy elements" or "complex life requires large molecules for storing information (but not necessarily DNA)" or even "complex life will require liquid water" are the same thing as assuming that all life is "like us."

It is really an assumption that life is chemistry based and requires the storage of information, and that chemistry is the same everywhere in the universe. Now, some might argue such assumptions, but they are not unreasonable.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: More precisely, it is the weak AP that is used among the other AP's. The I&J paper neatly shows why the religious anthropic argument is naively wrong and why the weak AP support a naturalistic universe and so undermines creationist ideas.

How would such life react to supernova radiation, cosmic rays, and the like? Do you have any idea? No, you don’t, and you have no way of knowing - yet you make the assertion anyway. Why? I say that your assertion is completely irrelevant to any discussion of any kind of habitable zone, since we have only one data point for life: Earth. Thus, we must work within these constraints when discussing GHZ

It has been claimed, most prominently by Dr. Hugh Ross on his web site http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/design.html that the so-called "fine-tuning" of the constants of physics supports a supernatural origin of the universe. Specifically, it is claimed that many of the constants of physics must be within a very small range of their actual values, or else life could not exist in our universe. Since it is alleged that this range is very small, and since our very existence shows that our universe has values of these constants that would allow life to exist, it is argued that the probability that our universe arose by chance is so small that we must seek a supernatural origin of the universe. In this article we will show that this argument is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but in fact we will show that the observation that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this sense can only count against a supernatural origin of the universe. And we shall furthermore show that with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a supernatural origin of the universe is undermined.

In the total absence of any evidence, I’m willing to speculate that if there’s “life” (we might have to take a vote as to whether or not it is!) in zones of high radiation, that such life would *require* that radiation to survive, just as life on earth at the bottom of the ocean requires all that pressure to survive.

heddle: But you have to realize that we are talking intense radiation, unlike anything on earth outside of accelerator labs--and radiation, crudely speaking, breaks down matter. Furthermore life, at biogenesis, is probably especially fragile and susceptible to radiation damage. If you simply say "evolution will find a way" you are giving too much power to evolution. Evolution may be a powerful force, but it needs, it is reasonable to assume, building blocks that are not being dismantled by intense radiation. Again, maybe that is wrong, but it is not a lunatic fringe assumption.

Stanton,

Look, I can't repeating the same argument over and over. If you think the Chernobyl fungus is any sort of serious argument against the GHZ, then you should write the scientists interested in the GHZ (such as the author of the paper linked to on the wikipedia habitability zone page) and tell them they are wasting their time, because Chernobyl clearly proves that the GHZ a silly concept.

But instead of that, I suggest you do some research on what people think the effect on life on earth would be if a nearby star went supernova (no I don't mean our own sun.) Many believe that life could be annihilated by the radiation generated by such an event. Now in some parts of the galaxy there would always be many supernovae exploding nearby. And that is just one aspect of the GHZ idea.

Look, I can’t repeating the same argument over and over.

the hell you say.

If you simply say “evolution will find a way” you are giving too much power to evolution. Evolution may be a powerful force, but it needs, it is reasonable to assume, building blocks that are not being dismantled by intense radiation.

Heddle, you said that intense radiation was inimical to life as we know it.

Whereupon I brought up an example of life as we know it that has adapted to intense radiation as a counterpoint to your claim. Why is that illegal?

FURTHERMORE, you have not elucidated the connection between the galactic habitability zone hypothesis and Intelligent Design "theory" beyond that the hypothesis was put forth by a professed Intelligent Design proponent. Saying that this hypothesis is a (trivial) contribution to science made by Intelligent Design, without explicitly stating whether or not its proponent was motivated or even inspired by Intelligent Design "theory," or even how the galactic habitability zone hypothesis fits with Intelligent Design is akin to stating that Newtonian physics promotes alchemy because Isaac Newton was a closet alchemist.

The gist of Intelligent Design, as I originally learned from Darwin's Black Box, is that "if it looks complicated, it was made that way, ergo it was designed." You have not made it clear how galactic habitability zone hypothesis fits with Intelligent Design, unless you've been trying to say that the hypothesis boils down to "Earth has life on it because this planet is found in a zone of the galaxy that was specifically designed to hold life."

Am I right or am I wrong, and if so, why?

heddle: But instead of that, I suggest you do some research on what people think the effect on life on earth would be if a nearby star went supernova (no I don't mean our own sun.)

Many believe that life could be annihilated by the radiation generated by such an event. Now in some parts of the galaxy there would always be many supernovae exploding nearby. And that is just one aspect of the GHZ idea.

It seems like GHZ and teleology are simply confusing the discussion here.

Teleological arguments, and arguments based on what is required for human habitability (or life as we know it) are so old that they have been a continuous part of human and scientific history. Just attaching new names such as “anthropic principle” or “galactic habitability zone” doesn’t change the concepts, nor does it change the fact that these have been working ideas for centuries. It has been understood for at least a few hundred years that teleology and suitability for life do not imply a deity (or its more recent euphemism, “intelligent agent”) or a purpose behind the universe.

The attempted introduction of Intelligent Design has been responsible for the more recent abuses of these ideas. It has generated the notion that “philosophical perspective” is a unique argument that can be used to justify extending the definition of science to include sectarian dogma because belief in a sectarian god may lead to a “unique perspective” that discovers what everyone else overlooks. This is a pretentious argument that ignores what has been going on for hundreds of years without anyone needing to endorse any sectarian god.

“Different perspectives” are common in science. Even physics problems can be cast in teleological form (the curve that minimizes the potential energy of a flexible cable is the catenary curve; light travels the path through media that minimizes its time of travel, etc.). But this is simply a way of reformulating a problem that allows the use of other ideas or data in its solution (e.g., the use of energy concepts instead of force concepts). It doesn’t mean that a cable somehow has the purpose of minimizing its potential energy, or that a photon has the purpose of minimizing its time of travel.

Anthropic arguments of various forms have been used for hundreds of years (“the universe was made for man” type of arguments), even though they weren’t called “anthropic” arguments until about 30 or 40 years ago.

Those arguments have not been confined to the solar system. Predicting “resonances” near 7.7 MeV in the energy levels of the carbon nucleus in order to account for the abundance of carbon production in stars (so there would be enough carbon for life??) has been offered as an anthropic principle prediction (e.g., by Barrow and Tipler). The prediction, or the argument behind it, has nothing to do with life; it simply has to do with the observed abundance of carbon and the need to find a mechanism that does this in stars. It was a clue about what a more detailed look at the energy levels in the nucleus would probably find. Claiming that a belief in a sectarian deity led you to it or that it was needed for the existence of life is irrelevant.

And if one wants to look for life as we know it, one has a higher probability of finding it in regions that have the elements, gravity, and energy ranges that our region has. As our understanding of life has improved, and as technology has improved, the ability to sort out regions of the galaxy where this might happen has improved. What then is unique about the idea of “galactic habitability zones”? What does that moniker offer that wasn’t already in place and working?

If “teleological” and “anthropic” (or GHZ) are simply words to simplify longer phrases, there might not be a problem. But raising them to a pretentious level of philosophical sophistry just adds confusion.

Do you have a link or reference for that paper?

I have never studied this paper carefully

It has not been published in any peer reviewed journal,

non-IDers should be trumpeting fine tuning rather than dismissing it.

Instead they refer to multiverse theories or to Lee Smolin.

With assumptions about such things as “inscrutability” I & J then perform a Baysian analysis

FURTHERMORE, you have not elucidated the connection between the galactic habitability zone hypothesis and Intelligent Design “theory” beyond that the hypothesis was put forth by a professed Intelligent Design proponent.

Whereupon I brought up an example of life as we know it that has adapted to intense radiation as a counterpoint to your claim. Why is that illegal?

I guess I wasn’t very clear when I said that I expected the radiation would be a *requirement* for whatever “life” lived there. Imagine that the “life” takes the form of energy patterns, driven by that same (and very necessary) radiation, within some sort of matrix.

Predicting “resonances” near 7.7 MeV in the energy levels of the carbon nucleus in order to account for the abundance of carbon production in stars (so there would be enough carbon for life??) has been offered as an anthropic principle prediction (e.g., by Barrow and Tipler). The prediction, or the argument behind it, has nothing to do with life; it simply has to do with the observed abundance of carbon and the need to find a mechanism that does this in stars. It was a clue about what a more detailed look at the energy levels in the nucleus would probably find. Claiming that a belief in a sectarian deity led you to it or that it was needed for the existence of life is irrelevant.

The I & J (and Sobers) paper builds on multiverses.

But the important part of the paper for creationists would be to find out the difference between probabilities and likelihoods on observations, and that part is only using standard conditional probabilities.

I.e. the texas sharpshooter fallacy of claiming life must be rare because of the low probability that any one planet has it (a priori probability) instead of the real probability that the likelihood for life in the universe is large as there are observably many planets (a posteriori likelihood). It seems to me it should be essential to get such a basic method of observations correct in any beat of physics.

Mike Elzinga: “Different perspectives” are common in science. Even physics problems can be cast in teleological form (the curve that minimizes the potential energy of a flexible cable is the catenary curve; light travels the path through media that minimizes its time of travel, etc.). But this is simply a way of reformulating a problem that allows the use of other ideas or data in its solution (e.g., the use of energy concepts instead of force concepts). It doesn’t mean that a cable somehow has the purpose of minimizing its potential energy, or that a photon has the purpose of minimizing its time of travel.

heddle: Stanton,

FURTHERMORE, you have not elucidated the connection between the galactic habitability zone hypothesis and Intelligent Design “theory” beyond that the hypothesis was put forth by a professed Intelligent Design proponent.

But why should I? "Motivation" was the only thing I postulated back in my first post. Not that ID leads, in a scientific way to GHZ, but that you might be able to argue that GHZ was motivated by ID. There is absolutely no reason why I should be asked to support a connection I didn't make or postulate.

Stanton:

heddle: Stanton,

FURTHERMORE, you have not elucidated the connection between the galactic habitability zone hypothesis and Intelligent Design “theory” beyond that the hypothesis was put forth by a professed Intelligent Design proponent.

But why should I? "Motivation" was the only thing I postulated back in my first post. Not that ID leads, in a scientific way to GHZ, but that you might be able to argue that GHZ was motivated by ID. There is absolutely no reason why I should be asked to support a connection I didn't make or postulate.

if you refuse to explain how Intelligent Design "theory" motivated galactic habitability zone hypothesis, or how galactic habitability zone hypothesis even conforms to Intelligent Design "theory," then you have absolutely no right to state that it is even a trivial contribution to Science in the exact same way that a person has no right to state that Newtonian Physics was directly inspired by Alchemy without any explanation beyond "Newton was an alchemist."

Stanton,

We have been discussing Hoyle's anthropic prediction of a level of Carbon. Is it right to say that his prediction was motivated by anthropic reasoning, which is not science? If it is right, how is that different from suggesting that Gonzalez's ID might have motivated his GHZ hypothesis? I don't see the difference. In both cases, non-science (by the usual definition) motivated a scientific hypothesis. In Hoyle's case we know it was an anthropic motivation, in Gonzalez's I am speculating that it might have been an ID motivation.

PvM,

You are somehow, it appears to me, trying to get me to argue Gonzalez's position for him, or a position that I didn't advocate, and I can't and won't. Also, we are discussing the GHZ hypothesis, which is quite different from the Privileged Planet hypothesis. And nobody here has claimed that ID has made any prediction. The only claim was that ID might have motivated Gonzalez. It doesn't even matter if it doesn't comport with the "requirement" that ID not name the designer--it is at least (and obviously so) possible that Gonzalez said to himself something along the lines of: I think the universe was designed, and I think habitable zones in the galaxy would be a likely manifestation of that design, so let's do some astrophysics to back up that speculation.

To claim this is impossible is to claim you can read Gonzalez's mind.

But again, what I really think this represents is an illogical insistence that there can be no possible link, ever, between ID and science, because ID is evil. But that's just silly. Scientific research can be motivated by many non-scientific factors: money, anthropic arguments, criminal intent, etc. There is no reason why ID cannot, in principle, motivate someone to engage in legitimate scientific research. That is in fact what the IDers should do, rather than shaming themselves by fighting politcal rather than scientific battles.

In reacting to the ID Inc. nonsense that "ID is science," you are taking a position that is, it seems to me, absurd.

heddle: Stanton, We have been discussing Hoyle's anthropic prediction of a level of Carbon. Is it right to say that his prediction was motivated by anthropic reasoning, which is not science? If it is right, how is that different from suggesting that Gonzalez's ID might have motivated his GHZ hypothesis? I don't see the difference. In both cases, non-science (by the usual definition) motivated a scientific hypothesis. In Hoyle's case we know it was an anthropic motivation, in Gonzalez's I am speculating that it might have been an ID motivation.

But again, what I really think this represents is an illogical insistence that there can be no possible link, ever, between ID and science, because ID is evil. But that's just silly. Scientific research can be motivated by many non-scientific factors: money, anthropic arguments, criminal intent, etc. There is no reason why ID cannot, in principle, motivate someone to engage in legitimate scientific research. That is in fact what the IDers should do, rather than shaming themselves by fighting politcal rather than scientific battles. In reacting to the ID Inc. nonsense that "ID is science," you are taking a position that is, it seems to me, absurd.

heddle: [...] Scientific research can be motivated by many non-scientific factors: money, anthropic arguments, criminal intent, etc. There is no reason why ID cannot, in principle, motivate someone to engage in legitimate scientific research. That is in fact what the IDers should do, rather than shaming themselves by fighting politcal rather than scientific battles.

What I am trying to ask you is what evidence there is that leads you to speculate that Gonzales was motivated by Intelligent Design “theory” to propose the galactic habitability zone hypothesis besides the fact that he is now an Intelligent Design proponent.

That you have repeatedly refused to explain how the idea that only certain zones within a spiral galaxy can support life springs from, or even relates to a “theory” that states that “life = complicated = therefore design” leads me to reject your suggestion that the galactic habitability zone hypothesis is a (trivial) contribution to Science. I make it a point never to accept idle speculation as a substitute for evidence in scientific matters.

The reasons why people, like most of the poster here, find it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Intelligent Design can be a motivation for Science is that all of the official proponents of Intelligent Design do not do science,

Eric,

Thank you, that is indeed my point. You stated it much better than I did.

And again, if Gonzalez came here and stated flatly that his motivation for his science (at least the GHZ stuff) was ID–would you simply call him a liar?

The argument against 'natural' abiogenesis from probability fails on the grounds that there is no reason to suspect that the observable universe is the entire universe and reasons to suspect that it is not.

Somewhere in that vastness abiogenesis occurs and 'intelligent' life develops. Then the tiny little bubble around there becomes the observable universe for that species...

Flint,

We agree. Is that a first?

David Benson,

We also agree, although I think you understated the fact that we have "reasons to suspect" that the observable universe is not the entire universe. We have, I would say, close to overwhelming evidence given the discoveries in this era of precision cosmology--the flatness of the universe and the accelerating expansion. The latter even implies that not only is the observable universe not "all there is," it is in fact shrinking. Distant galaxies will blink off as the expanding space overwhelms the speed of light.

I find it illuminating thta in the back and forth Heddle misses a couple of important facts:

if ID (or Christianity or whatever) was Gonzalez's inspiration, SO WHAT? that does not make ID more (or less) scientific - if the image of a snake eating it's own tail is a inspiration for theorizing the molecular structure of cyclohexane (or was it benzene?) SO WHAT - that does not make belief on Ouroboros scientific. Subsequnet EVIDENCE of the stucture (in my example) PROVED the model to be correct.

the argument that the fact that life on earth exists, and that the observation that the universe is the way it is somehow as being 'proof' for fine tuning is BS- if the universe was different, then the universe would be different and perhaps we would not exist - what does this show? why is this line of reasoning any different than (to paraphrase) "this pothole is perfectly shaped for the puddle it contains - someone must have designed it that way"?

I suggest you look at that more carefully. That prediction has quite a bit to do with life. It was Hoyle (an atheist) who made the anthropic prediction about the Carbon energy level, and it most certainly was related to life. It was the archetype and classic anthropic argument that said, in effect, we are here, made of this stuff (heavy elements), that can’t be made anywhere else except inside stars, therefore this level of carbon must be there to provide the correct rates for the needed nuclear reactions. It was more than a clue, it was a prediction–and it was motivated by something not generally regarded as science: anthropic reasoning. Contrast it to a non-anthropic standard scientific approach–a detailed, microscopic model of the carbon nucleus leading to a prediction of the resonance.

The prediction, or the argument behind it, has nothing to do with life; it simply has to do with the observed abundance of carbon and the need to find a mechanism that does this in stars. It was a clue about what a more detailed look at the energy levels in the nucleus would probably find. Claiming that a belief in a sectarian deity led you to it or that it was needed for the existence of life is irrelevant.

why is this line of reasoning any different than (to paraphrase) “this pothole is perfectly shaped for the puddle it contains - someone must have designed it that way”?

Flint: [...] I also agree with Eric that if they follow the scientific method and produce good results, they're doing good science regardless of their religious faith.

actually have no clue about how anything you wrote is a response to anything I wrote, so I’ll assume you just making a general interest statement. In fact, I don’t even know what “But it wasn’t a necessary perspective nor was it a uniquely justified perspective.” even means.

To my understanding, scientist do not always follow any rigorous methodology, when they try to figure out where is the most promising place to stick their probe next. On other occasions they do, but I suspect that they have been doing some thinking before they start applying rigorous methods.

Producing good science is not fully automated yet. Following the scientific method rigorously is no guarantee to get meaningful results. Why is it so? Or am I mistaken?

The scientific method, properly applied, acts as a control on our imaginations to limit us to actualities, not just flights of fancy.

But in the case of Gonzalez, that is demonstrably false. He is a leading IDer. He clearly has done science.

And again, if Gonzalez came here and stated flatly that his motivation for his science (at least the GHZ stuff) was ID–would you simply call him a liar?

Even if Gonzalez was "inspired" by ID to pursue his GHZ idea, it does not follow that ID "predicted" the GHZ. I think this is an important distinction, possibly the most important one. In fact the GHZ idea seems a natural extrapolation from the habitable zone around stars. And yes it is very much like the puddle. Zones we consider habitable may only harbour life "as we know it", but you gotta start somewhere, and "as we know it" is more easily identified than a superintelligent shade of the colour blue.

What science is he doing right now, and why wasn’t it convincing enough to get him tenure?

If Gonzales does what you have not done, and explain how he was inspired by Intelligent Design to propose the galactic habitability zone hypothesis, no, I would not call him a liar. On the other hand, if he does not explain how he was inspired, or even refuses to explain how the galactic habitability zone hypothesis supports Intelligent Design “theory,” I will have extreme doubts about the contribution this hypothesis has to science

Even if Gonzalez was “inspired” by ID to pursue his GHZ idea, it does not follow that ID “predicted” the GHZ. I think this is an important distinction, possibly the most important one. In fact the GHZ idea seems a natural extrapolation from the habitable zone around stars. And yes it is very much like the puddle. Zones we consider habitable may only harbour life “as we know it”, but you gotta start somewhere, and “as we know it” is more easily identified than a superintelligent shade of the colour blue.

So we can all agree on these things:

1) Gonzalez originated the notion of the GHZ, and some justification for it.

2) The GHZ wasn't predicted by or implicit in any nonexistent "ID theory"

3) The GHZ is at least compatible with some religious beliefs, probably including those of Gonzalez

4) Points 2) and 3) are irrelevant to anything scientific. If there IS a GHZ for the reasons Gonzalez hypothesizes (and we may never know), it's a valid testable hypothesis in principle. In practice, it might be a while.

Flint: So we can all agree on these things: 1) Gonzalez originated the notion of the GHZ, and some justification for it. ... 4) ... If there IS a GHZ for the reasons Gonzalez hypothesizes (and we may never know), it's a valid testable hypothesis in principle. In practice, it might be a while.

heddle:

stanton actually providing an example of a trivial contribution that Intelligent Design has made to Science?

That is very difficult. However, one example might be the idea of galactic habitability zones. But I think that one would be hard pressed to argue that that was an ID result—although one might easily argue that it was ID motivated. In peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject, Gonzalez is generally given credit for the concept of large scale habitability zones, and the mere existence of such papers indicates that the concept has exceeded the “trivial” threshold.

Actually it was the skin of paint on the knob on the top.

If this layman's memory serves, there aren't enough stars in the galactic perimeter to perpetuate stellar births, so they'd mostly be very old... possibly metal poor, and probably smaller and cooler than average. Reading book might help us both.

Forget about it. If you think you can explain ID with words you are barking up the wrong tree. The most important things in this life we all live you can't see. The air we breath, the love we feel, and the thought's we think. That is in my opinion God. Just like what the apparent space between atom's and molocule's is, are, oh what ever. If you really want the true answers. Look inside yourselve's, in your own heart. It may not seem like it at times but that IS somthing we all have.

heddle: Stanton, We have been discussing Hoyle's anthropic prediction of a level of Carbon. Is it right to say that his prediction was motivated by anthropic reasoning, which is not science?

I have read enough of I & J to know that they state exactly the opposite–that the utility of their argument in fighting fine-tuning based ID is that it is not a multiverse argument–that their result, they claim, is powerful precisely because it does not resort to a multiverse.

Once I knew what they are trying to do–use Bayesian analysis

You simply cannot make any probability claim of this type, pro or con, until we have a handle on the probability that life arises

it is still fine tuned even if the constants are derivable–i.e., probability one

Just because Hoyle started with a prior piece of knowledge about the existence of life and then went to carbon was simply idiosyncratic.