Outed for being straight
April 26th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarFrom Philadelphia:
It’s happened so often that it’s now a cultural cliche: the gay politician pretending to be straight. In most parts of the nation, homosexuality or bisexuality is a clear electoral liability.
Not in Center City’s 182d state House district. There, it’s a badge of honor.
Veteran Rep. Babette Josephs (D., Phila.) last Thursday accused her primary opponent, Gregg Kravitz, of pretending to be bisexual in order to pander to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender voters, a powerful bloc in the district.
Heh that is a new one. Pretending to be bisexual to gain votes.
Kravitz, 29, said that he is sexually attracted to both men and women and called Josephs’ comments offensive.
An easy way to solve the issue though. Kravitz just needs to pash a hunky guy in public. I doubt any straight guy would do that just to win votes.
Tags: gay
April 26th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Will the Nats take this tactic on board to destroy Rainbow Labour?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:17 am
A true politician would pash anyone for a vote.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:18 am
My vote is for DPF to use the word “hunky” more often.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Did she not have the ability to discuss his policies or actual ability? Where he choses to legally put his penis is relevant to his administrative abilities how?
The quickest way to lose my vote is to play the man not the ball. This concept is apprently a secret in our political system however.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:27 am
” Where he choses to legally put his penis is relevant to his administrative abilities how?”
Maybe not to his administrative abilities, but it will have a direct bearing on any decision he makes relating to social issues, and voters have a right to know about that, as they may have quite different opinions to Mr. Kravitz or any of the homosexual political lobby.
This idea that politicians can be elected without disclosing their sexuality to the electorate is politically correct garbage. Voters have a right to know.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Everyone knows that breeders are the worst kind of person there is!
Vote:Ewwww! he might even have kids!!
April 26th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Outed for being straight or outed for being a liar? I guess it is a little like some politicians playing the “family values” card – if you are using that as a platform then it probably is a good idea to ensure you exhibit those values in your own life.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
How much should politicians disclose? If they have alcohol or drug problems? If they have ever been unfaithful to their partner (one of the ultimate betrayals)? If they don’t believe in evolution? If they believe in any wacky conspiracies? If they blog under pseudonyms?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Red did you miss the word legally?
If you have an issue with a poersons sexaulity then you are into the area iof personal agenda.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:44 am
“If you have an issue with a poersons sexaulity then you are into the area iof personal agenda.”
Sorry Murray- don’t quite get that. Are you saying that if a politician chooses to hide his/ HER sexuality from the public, that is OK?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Of course, the fact that politicians make/change laws which are one of the largest contributers to the moral climate of a country, then their sexual preferences (among other things), and hence their moral foundation, are ENTIRLEY relevant and should be made known to the electorate.
This argument that someones values system is not pertinent to their role as political leader is beyond naive.
And someone, like Kravitz, pretending to be homo/bisexual, if that is the case, is almost as bad as it reveals his willingness to sell out to gain the popular vote. Queers, liars and fraudsters – these are the people that lead us; and we wonder why it’s all turning to custard.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Should Palin be totally non-PC and outline her religious aims should she become President? That could potentially be a lot more damaging than someone’s sexual inclinations.
There have been plenty of religious liars and fraudsters, but worse are those who totally believe that what crap they are doing is God’s will, part of God’s plan.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Fran Wilde brought forward the legislation to make homosexuality legal. Which Labour MP will bring forward the legialation to make it compulsory?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:50 am
See Murray- there’s (Kris K’s post) the question.
Should Kris as a voter, be denied knowledge he considers important?
(And if you say yes on this issue, then the logical extension of this adjudication reaches every other issue.)
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:52 am
That logical extension applies with my question too RB.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Mr George, there is no socially correct restriction that I know of that requres Christians to keep their faith secret, and they’re happy to answer questions. Its not in the “off limits” box, walled in by political correctness. Your comparison doesn’t work.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Yes, of course, why would you vote for someone based on policies and what the person stands for. Far more important to know whether he is gay or straight.
PC garbage or plain old prejudice?
What else do you need to know, Red, to be able to judge someone on social issues? What porn they prefer to watch? What turns them on? Leather? A bit of S&M? Does he like it doggy style?
I would assume that a person can make his position of social issues quite clear without needing to declare such private matters,
Vote:Unless one make his sexuality a part of the campaign, I don’t think it is in any way relevant.
April 26th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Veteran republican: I’M GONNA MAKE YOUR SEXUALITY THE ISSUE WHILE CLAIMING YOU’RE THE ONE DOING SO
Surprise!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:00 am
“Unless one make his sexuality a part of the campaign, I don’t think it is in any way relevant.”
Then it is also not relevant whether they believe in evolution, a geocentric universe, or pray every night for gold dust and holy feathers.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Kravitz just needs to pash a hunky guy in public. I doubt any straight guy would do that just to win votes.
Helen Clark would!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am
It’s not their faith I’m referring to RB, there are a lot of good people who have one faith or another.
It’s whether they would push their flavour of faith to the detriment of others or the country. If they wanted to break down the political/religious firewall. If they wanted to include creation in science teaching. If they might fight wars on religious grounds. If they might set up Alaska as the ultimate end times destination. Those sort of things are potentially a lot more important than what someone might do privately in their bedroom.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:04 am
eszett: it is relevant if, rightly or wrongly, it affects how people vote. Everything else is commentary.
Vote:.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Hey! I’ve got a good idea, why don’t we just get the majority of voters to vote on a whim such as physical appearance or some other superficial trait!
!!!
Oh…wait…..
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:08 am
eszett, of COURSE it is relevant. How can you not see that? Let’s say a motion came up in your State to allow gay marriage. If you’re pro-gay you’ll want a politician who shares your values to represent you; likewise, Christians would not want to vote for someone who is secretly ‘gay’ because he does not share their values and will vote accordingly.
It would be like electing a man who does not disclose that he is a pig farmer/butcher to be head of the Vegan Action lobby group. See any conflict there?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Sad but probably true Shunda – has any research been done on how people decide to vote? How influential are the whim voters?
Fletch, it could also be relevant if someone who discounted the science of evolution wanted to become Minister of Science.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Pete it is sad, I am astonished at the shallow reasons some people I have spoken to base their choice on.
Vote:I would imagine the whim voters would be the single largest block.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Pete, you mean the ‘theory’ of evolution, don’t you? I think that’s how it’s still referred to as.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:17 am
“I don’t think it is in any way relevant.”
Sure. That’s what you think. (and of course it would be)
You have no right though to force that view on others.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am
For fuck’s sake PG- ask away. Its not “off limits” like sexuality.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Shunda, so you’re saying someone’s sexual preference is a “shallow reason” and doesn’t have any effect on any of the important decisions they make in life and would not affect decisions they make in their job as politician? Don’t be absurd.
Vote:If a gay marriage bill came up, guess which way a gay politician is going to vote? In the same way, you would probably not vote for a Catholic representative – you would want to know if he is Catholic or not. Who would be “shallow” then?
April 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Pete George 10:48 am,
Your implication, Pete, that should Palin come into power she would legislate to make Christianity ‘compulsory’ is ludicrous. Unlike those of the homosexual ‘persuasion’ who come into power pushing the homosexual agenda for all it’s worth, and changing the laws accordingly.
I guess you’d be ok with someone who advocated bestiality/pedophilia/promiscuity (pick your favourite perversion) not being expected to make their views known were they to stand for office?
And by the way, if we had a government who felt strongly about repealing the homosexual law reform of 1986, and this was ALSO the will of the electorate, then I would have no problem in going back to the pre 86 status quo. Democracy in action versus what we have observed for the last 20+ years where many of these type laws were brought in DESPITE the will of the electorate. Anti-smacking, anyone?
I’ve said this before; you might not be able to legislate FOR morality, but you can sure as hell legislate AGAINST immorality.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Shunda, so you’re saying someone’s sexual preference is a “shallow reason” and doesn’t have any effect on any of the important decisions they make in life and would not affect decisions they make in their job as politician? Don’t be absurd.”
No that is not what I am saying!!
Vote:I am saying it is pathetic on what many people base their choice on who to vote for in an election.
I am bemoaning the general shallow nature of the masses.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
There is three main groups of voters:
Entrenched voters like Suzanne Prentice, who vote for the same party without thinking
Side voters who might move National-Act or Labour-Green but stick to the supposed left or right
Floating voters who at least try to make informed choices
Whim voters (who could be called a subset of floating voters)
Election results are due mostly to the floating and whim voters.
In national politics the media can be very influential on the whim sector. Local body elections have a larger (often much larger) segment of uninformed voters.
Such is democracy. It’s a system we have and every party has to try and compete with it.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:31 am
If you want to know a candidate’s views, why not simply ask them about those views?
For example,
“Do you believe homosexual acts between consenting adults should be criminal offences?”
“Would you vote in favour of a bill recognising civil marriage between two same-sex partners?”
“Do you support a sex-education curriculum that teaches about homosexuality as a normal and healthy sexual desire?”
“Would you propose a law requiring participation in a homosexual act at least once to gain understanding of it?”
All these questions are likely to get much more informative answers about the candidate’s public policy ideas than, “are you homosexual?” or, “do you experience sexual attraction to members of your sex?”
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I’m not implying that she would, I have no idea what her true intent is. But I suspect many people who support her would like her to do that.
Mr Gronk, getting a straight answer out of many politicians is not easy. They are aware that they need to whet the whims.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Mr Gronk- typical irrational brainwashed commie- thinking completely constrained by the dictates of political correctness.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
” But I suspect many people who support her would like her to do that.”
So fucking what? That’s democracy. Just like you and your idiot knuckle dragging indoctrinated supporters choose to vote for Marxist Secular Progressives who are naturally going to impose their will.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:44 am
RB, I believe in asking questions that actually seek the desired answer, and don’t believe in winding people up unnecessarily. If that makes me a brainwashed communist, then so be it.
But, then, in my time lurking here, you’ve applied those labels pretty liberally. So, I suppose all you’re doing is acknowledging my existence and that I have different opinions to you. You’re welcome.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Quite right, Fletch. Good to have your eagle eyes on the job. Sometimes I even catch myself referring to “gravity” without adding “theory of” in front of it! Embarassing!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:49 am
A candidate should be free to disseminate and withhold information about themselves as they see fit. Likewise the voting public should be free to ask and speculate about that person as they see fit (normal libel considerations notwithstanding). It’s wrong to declare some information off-limits, as any facet of a person’s character can influence the way they will act in government.
Some people like to know if a male candidate shags other blokes. Fair enough. I like to know if they’re religious as I think this is a good indicator that they lack critical thinking ability and are prone to naivety. Each to their own.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Ryan is a fundamentalist gravitationist!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:51 am
But would I sit on it if it was as chair?!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Pete:
In which case, I suppose asking them anything at all is a fool’s errand. We may as well just go off what we already know of their behaviour and voting record, and hope they haven’t changed their minds.
There are times I wish I lived in a world where a community leader’s word actually meant something.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:53 am
And yet, the greatest politicians we have ever had believed in God.
Vote:Strange that.
April 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Not really. The reasons why it’s naive to believe in God have increased greatly in the last 100 or so years. Anyway, what politicians do you consider to be the greatest?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 11:57 am
“I like to know if they’re religious as I think this is a good indicator that they lack critical thinking ability and are prone to naivety.”
Yep, that well known moron Albert Einstein being a classic example.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Mr Gronk – we should ask, and our media should ask, but we can’t expect to get a complete unvarnished response.
Yesterday Phil Goff on Q&A came across as a reasonably polished election interview. Didn’t do a lot for me in changing my mind about him, except for his remarkable show of support for Winston, I don’t know if that was a slip or if it was deliberate.
Fletch, some of the greatest scientists believe in science. Some of them also believe in God but that doesn’t get in the way of their scientific endeavours.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Ludicrous, not really.
She denounced this week’s Wisconsin federal court ruling that government observance of a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional — which the crowd joined in booing. She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that “God should be separated from the state.”
“Hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation and poking at allies like Israel in the eye — it is mind-boggling to see some of our nation’s actions recently, but politics truly is a topic for another day,” Palin said.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“Yep, that well known moron Albert Einstein being a classic example.”
Yeah! that guy did nuthin for nobody!
Vote:Stoopid irrational scientist wrecking science.
SCIENCE H LOGIC!!! IT MAKES ME MAD!!
April 26th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“But would I sit on it if it was as chair?!”
Whoa!
Vote:that’s deep,
That’s deep as bro.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Dumb example. Einstein said a lot of contradictory things on religion and there’s plenty of evidence that he wasn’t religious at all. More a God-of-the-gaps chap.
Anyway it’s pointless to do a head-count of who does and doesn’t believe in God. Evidence is what matters. Einstein would tell you that.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Fletch 11:53 am,
And these same politicians would likely be the best advocates for strengthening/supporting Malcolm’s family, and the rights and freedoms they enjoy.
Once again; without a strong (and some might say absolute) moral foundation, especially of our leaders, our society will continue to decline, and our freedoms and rights will progressively be taken from us.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Pete, no it informs it. If you believe in God (as I do) then you know that God created everything, so as such, science and God cannot really be opposed, and aren’t. Why do you see it as an either/or proposition?
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in article 159 –
Francis Collins, who is the director of the Human Genome Project that ‘read’ the genome also says, ” I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.” (Collins: Why This Scientist Believes In God)
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Joe90, actually, the ‘Separation of Church And State’ meant exactly the opposite of the argument people use it for.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Redbaiter 11:57 am,
And let’s not forget the man that discovered the theory that allows Ryan to sit on his chair with minimal faith.
Vote:Newton actually wrote more on his Christian faith than he did on scientific theory – just for your information, Malcolm.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Denying scientific fact does have a relevance on how the person is able to deal with science, evidence and facts.
Vote:Someone’s ability to think and his ability to critically analyse and conclude is relevant.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
The only conflict between science and faith is between a tiny over funded elitist, largely irrelevant, branch of biology and SOME creationists.
Vote:It is a conflict that has been blown out of all proportion by the leaders of the Atheist religion, contrary to popular belief, it is not essential, and the world will not end if Richard Dawkins and chums can’t convince everybody that life is meaningless and pointless.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Malcolm is a good example of someone’s sexuality affecting their political perspective. He won’t vote for Christians because he’s queer.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Not everyone who believes in God thinks God created everything.
Scientists who believe in God are not constrained (unless they believe in literal creation), there is no God science so there is no real conflict. Because religion is a belief it isn’t difficult for it to co-exist with science except for the bible literalists who have plenty of internal contradictions of their own.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Some might, some might not. Jim Anderton is an example of the latter for me. Anyway, religion is just one of the things I judge a politician on. You make a decision based on very little information. I personally give negative weighting to religious belief and you probably do the same for homosexuality. We’re both trying to do the same thing – select the right person for the job.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Which was a subset of his even larger body of writings on occult alchemy and Rosicrucianism!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
malcolm 12:18 pm,
Now we just have to work out what their MOTIVES are for wanting to do “the job”, Malcolm.
Vote:Which brings us back to their values and worldview.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Fletch, wouldn’t it be easier to ask ones position on gay marriage or social issues than to assume it via his sexuality.
Isn’t what you describe exactly what is meant by prejudice.
So you say someone could vote for a politician because he agrees with his position. But as soon as that same politician declares his is gay, oh no, everything changes, you couldn’t possibly vote for him.
That, by definition, is prejudice and homophobia.
I think you should be able to be a politician without the need to declare your private life, be it gay or straight, or you have a family or not. Even religion should not be relevant.
As long as you are not campaigning on it!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
David Barton: Amateur Historian, Professional Propagandist, now there’s a bloke who has problems with the facts.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
And Redbaiter is a good example of someone who can’t contribute without abuse and telling people to fuck off. But hey ho, it obviously does something for him.
Anyway, religion is just one factor I consider. Presumably sexual preference is just one factor you consider.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Nice try, Shunda, now that you cannot deny it without looking stupid, you try to call it irrelevant and elitist.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Shunda, who told you that Dawkins is trying to convince everybody that life is meaningless and pointless?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Malcolm, I particularly liked the incontinent old tom cat jibe.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Exactly. I don’t want a politician who has demonstrated to me that they can suspend the rational part of their brains and believe what I considered to be complete nonsense. For me that demonstrates a weakness of character. But of course you disagree. That’s great and that’s why we each get a vote (two actually under this charming MMP system).
As for Newton. Do you think he would be a Christian if he was alive today? I doubt it. There’s a lot of evidence now to disprove the assertions of Chrisitainity and still no new evidence to support them. Anyway the whole idea of doing a headcount of scientists is flawed – evidence is what matters.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
It just goes to show that politics in Western society today is slowly loosing its authentic appeal, especially when we have a constituency in the 21st century that cares little for political substance and policy but more for sexual orientation and other once private details.
It was fun, while it lasted.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Thanks Joe90.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
malcolm 12:37 pm,
And I think the (true) scientific evidence for God has grown exponentially since Newton’s time.
Vote:Funny how the same evidence leads us to two different conclusions, Malcolm – especially as we’re also both engineers involved with design. I view God as the ultimate ‘engineer’.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I’ll bite. What, specifically? Please don’t say DNA – Chlintoid (spelling?) will just come along and explain why that’s a very poor reading of the facts.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Kris, any mathematician can tell you zero won’t grow exponentially.
I think the only way religion can survive into the future is if it keeps it’s separation from science.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
I’ll second that. The term “exponential growth” and it’s misuse has risen exponentially with a time constant of 5.3.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
malcolm 1:08 pm,
DNA is certainly one of them – but ignoring that.
But the ‘Goldielocks conditions’ of earth, and the foundational laws of physics being ‘tuned’ to support life, are just some of the other evidences. And most of these things are largely subsequent to Newton’s time. I’m not going to link to all the articles, etc as better men than me have already made this available in the public domain.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Terry Pratchett summed up the problem with the “Goldilocks conditions” approach:
“Of course the world was made perfectly just for us. Why else would the sun rise just when we want to wake up?”
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Pete George 1:17 pm,
Indeed, the evolutionist’s/atheist’s dilemma.
Of course, ‘zero’ + God = infinite complexity, which is what we tend to observe.
Next?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Topic went ———-> that way boys.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Ryan Sproull 1:31 pm,
Terry Pratchett obviously wasn’t thinking about people who live in Auckland when he made that statement.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Or me. Doesn’t matter where the sun is, “I don’t want to get up” is a constant in this universe.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
What topic?
Kris, as Ryan has alluded to, the goldilocks conditions aren’t really any issue as we’ve evolved to fit the conditions. And if they weren’t workable then we wouldn’t be here to marvel at them. Just like we’re not on Mars or the billions of other planets. What was God’s reason for creating all those barren planets and solar systems?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
RRM 1:34 pm,
Apologies, RRM.
I guess that’s the trouble when we introduce morality/values into any discussion. That is, in this case, expecting politicians to have morality (well, some of us, anyway).
Morality/values invariably lead to the One who gives us those things.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“Nice try, Shunda, now that you cannot deny it without looking stupid, you try to call it irrelevant and elitist.”
You know, these atheist types are often (but not always) more concerned about what people don’t believe than what they do believe.
“oh its just not right!! people don’t see the world as I do!!”
Guess what eszett? IT DOESN’T MATTER!!
Who cares whether people believe in a geocentric universe or don’t believe in Darwinism, why the hell do you care?
Vote:I am not your enemy.
Time to wake up.
April 26th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
It SHOULDN’T matter Shunda. But it seems very difficult for many people to accept that we must be able to live together seeing the world differently, whether it be politically, religiously, sexually or whateverly, and sharing common values and morality.
Diversity is what makes us strong, adaptable – and not too boring.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Wait, has the topic moved on to atheism and evolution already?
Given that most social organisms are observed to behave altruistically towards each other (heck, even termites can do it), a natural explanation of morality more than suffices. There is nothing inevitable about morality leading to the fictions and fables of deism.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
malcolm 1:40 pm,
“… we’ve evolved to fit the conditions” – That’s nothing more than a cop out because we don’t like the implications of the alternative.
Of at least equal (some might say more) validity is the phrase, “The conditions were set up to support life, and the fine tuning we observe throughout the universe evidences a designer”. Your ‘analogy’ is like saying the reason we have flight is because a tornado went through a junkyard and ‘assembled’ a DC10. As opposed to some engineer ‘designed’ it, and technicians maintain it.
I believe it was to highlight just how unique and special mankind is – we are the only ones created in His image, afterall.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
With 20bn galaxies and even more solar systems, it is obvious that life appears in the universe as a kind of lottery-success rather than design.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Kris,
Your argument is that the universe looks like it was made just right (or, at least, “good enough”) for life on earth.
The thing is, the universe looks also exactly like it was not made just right for life on earth, but rather that life on earth evolved under earth-like conditions and inevitably became just right (or, really, “good enough”) for earth.
Because the Goldilocks conditions are just as much what would happen in an undesigned universe as they are what would happen in a designed one, they are not an argument for one way or another.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Chthoniid 2:03 pm,
Not when compared to the odds of DNA, and therefore life, coming about by chance.
And in fact the only thing ‘obvious’ is that nothing exists by chance IMHO.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
@jadis – Defining “family values” means defining what it means to be a “family”.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Three bisexual men are suing a national gay-athletic organization, saying they were discriminated against during the Gay Softball World Series held in the Seattle area two years ago.
The three Bay Area men say the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance in essence deemed them not gay enough to participate in the series.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011657770_lawsuit21m.html
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Clearly, “but I didn’t swallow” is the new “but I didn’t inhale”.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:06 pm,
Who said they are “just as much what would happen in an undesigned universe” ?
That’s only your assumption, Ryan.
Nothing man uses as a result of his technologies and efforts came about by chance – so why would we assume much more complex ‘systems’ are simply the result of chance? This isn’t even a rational/logical viewpoint.
Anyway, it’s time for a late lunch.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Politician of ambiguous sexual orientation is running in Philadelphia. Therefore, God created the universe.
WAT?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Pete says:
You sound like a teenager.
Anyone over 30 who is floating is not informed. If you haven’t formed any solid opinions on economic and social policy by then you are naive.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Rex Widerstrom 2:16 pm,
I was looking forward to my lunch, Rex, but sadly not so much now. Bastard!
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@Jadis – are you implying that a politician that promotes “family values” and is then caught in some sexual scandal is a hypocrite ?
I would suggest that there isn’t necessarily a conflict and that it possible to have a strong commitment to family while acting in a way that some may see as conflicting with that.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
goddam rex. thats just horrible
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
The Suzanne Prentice voter?
There are a lot of good reasons to keep your voting options open. Times change. Society changes. Economies change. Parties/politicians change. Governments run out of fresh ideas, get too remote from voters and issues. Tactical voting.
I think the “feet in political concrete” voters are worse than the whim voters, at least whimmers vote based on something rather than on fixed idealogy.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
No, it’s not. You must surely admit that life on earth looks exactly as if it had evolved to fit the conditions of earth, just as you believe that earth looks exactly as if it was designed to house life on earth. I think deep down you realise this.
No one assumes that complex systems are the result of chance. The assumption is that they were the result of natural causes. That assumption has worked well in the past. It is tried and true. Lightning – not God. Rainbows – not God. Disease – not God/evil spirits/whatever. Stars and planets and the sun – not God.
Why would you assume that, when almost everything that was ever explained supernaturally has now been explained naturally, the supernatural beliefs you have will just happen to be the exceptions?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Hmm, so can you demonstrate to me the actual odds of DNA coming into being Kris?
I look forward to exploring your evidence about the density of amino-acids and the temperature at which these reactions took place.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
IMO Pete,
Capitalism works and socialism doesn’t.
If I don’t like the people working for the capitalist parties, voting for socialism is not the answer.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Gregg Kravitz, pretending to be bisexual to get votes.. Now that’s got ta hurt..
Vote:when push come’s to shove.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
He also wrote a lot of occult works (and his Christian writings were borderline occult), and was keen on alchemy.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I think the “feet in political concrete” voters are worse than the whim voters, at least whimmers vote based on something rather than on fixed idealogy.
The battle today is plain and simple. Its against socialist totalitarianism. You know that as well as anyone, yet you constantly lie and twist and smokescreen here for the totalitarians. Disgusting. You’re either for totalitarianism or liberty. Not a hard choice for anyone with a conscience.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Surely any flavour of sexuality is self-defined and self-reported ? You can self-define as straight without ever having contact with the opposite sex.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
RB, the “battle” is nowhere near as simple as you make out. What type of liberty to you favour? No laws? No government? Anarchy?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Believing in evolution…. requires a hell of a lot of faith.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
” RB, the “battle” is nowhere near as simple as you make out.”
Yes it is. Anything that cuts back on government and taxes is worth voting for. Anything that does the opposite should be rejected. To coin a phrase, I don’t do nuances.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
You’re suggesting some level of reduced government and tax? A balance of liberty and social necessity? Can’t be, that involves nuance.
Going back to your first, nuanceless post:
All sexuality should be disclosed by all politicians, whether they be homo, bi, mono, multi, nil, kinky, etc? Or just nuances you have something against?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Fundamentally one group of parties is going to be arguing for a government budget of $99, and the other group for $101.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
@Redbaiter – your ideology may be sound but at an unacceptable human cost.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
@Pete George – agreed. Should a straight female politician who prefers oral sex to vaginal sex disclose that ?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
That caused a problem in the White House AG.
Going down didn’t go down well with part of the electorate.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
” All sexuality should be disclosed by all politicians, whether they be homo, bi, mono, multi, nil, kinky, etc? Or just nuances you have something against? ”
Voters should not be pilloried for asking about it. Given the state of politics today, it is a legitimate question.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“@Redbaiter – your ideology may be sound but at an unacceptable human cost.”
Socialist piffle. Its your money. Are you saying you cannot look after yourself and your family, and want to take the product of another man’s labour to enable you to do that?? You maybe, but not me. I don’t want to take from any of my fellow men. Apart from that which is offered freely.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Would you be happy for anyone to ask for honest answers about that from Palin? On any aspect of her sexuality?
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Can’t you read? If voters want to know anything relaiting to apolitician thay shoudl be free to ask the question. You lot and your crap about “you can’t ask this because its “offensive” are the problem.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@LiberalismIsASin
Why?
Evolution only requires four things to be true-
1- that populations vary in their traits, a readily observable phenomenon.
2- that there is a genetic mechanism of inheritance
3- that selection operates on these traits (readily observable in field and lab)
4- time (not essential but if speciation is going to occur, then there has to be time for many generations). Given geology, chemistry and biology all converge on an old earth, there is sufficient time.
I don’t really see why faith is required at any point when it is readily observable/demonstrated that each of these four things are ‘real’.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Pleased to hear that you thought anyone was free to ask any questions of Palin in the 2008 election, meaning her and her supporters’ complaints about the media were unjustified.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
@redbaiter – i guess that makes me a socialist promoter of totalitarianism.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
An ironic position for ‘baiter to take, when you remember all the moral outrage from ‘baiter and the rest of the right about the “swift boating” comments from the left at the last US elections, of the form “How dare you say that?!? How un-patriotic!! Oh the humanity!”
Yeah… Redbaiter doesn’t do nuances… UNLESS the nuance is about a right-winger who used to be a soldier.
Just BS, hypocrisy and curses from Redbaiter. Must be a day ending in y. Do not feed the troll.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
” her and her supporters’ complaints about the media were unjustified.”
Man you’re a waste of time. You hop around like a rabbit in a carrot patch. The complaint was that Palin was subjected to intense scrutiny while Obama was subjected to none. This from a sector that professes to provide objective comment. Go away Pete. As soon as you’re beat on one issue, you introduce another. Hopeless.
RRM, I don’t have a clue what you’re on about. I have always had nothing but contempt for McCain, veteran or not.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I don’t really see why faith is required at any point when it is readily observable/demonstrated that each of these four things are ‘real’.
And I don’t see why people should be required to believe in Darwinism or anything else Dawkins or Coyne or PZ have to say to be taken seriously as a genuine participant of the human race.
Vote:Darwinism is not important, it is as simple as that. Even if true it is still just a luxury field of biology that quite honestly seems more preoccupied with taking over the role of the church than anything else.
April 26th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:49 pm,
Ah … no.
“Life on earth looks exactly as if it [was designed] to fit the conditions of earth, just as [I] believe that earth looks exactly as if it was designed to house life on earth.” Slight difference, Ryan.
So therefore you are saying that “natural causes” are NOT the result of “chance” ? So if not ‘chance’, and you also reject the God option, then what IS the driver of so called “natural causes” ? If not chance then you are only left with some form of ‘intelligence’ behind your so called “natural causes”, which is what the IDers have been saying all along.
That’s just it, Ryan, very little of what I consider “supernatural” has been “explained naturally”. And this is why some ‘scientists’, or more accurately evolutionary religionists, suggest such things as multi-verses with different physical constants for each; and therefore different parameters for life, etc. Or people like you say we’re only here because the conditions are ‘just right’ for life to exist and come about in the first place, and if it wasn’t so we wouldn’t exist – sounds like circular reasoning to me. If you can point me to just ONE other Goldilocks planet like earth (liquid water, oxygen rich atmosphere, etc, etc) then I’ll admit your argument has some credibility.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound, Ryan?
Vote:No doubt, in one of your alternative realities the answer would be ‘No’.
April 26th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The appropriate cosmological test Kris, would be showing that the ID hypothesis is a more probable explanation than a natural mechanism. Given that it is impossible to calculate the probability that life would arise on earth, the existence of the universe does not lend any support to your fairy tale.
That you employ a very confused definition of ‘chance’ does not assist your comprehension and inferences about selection. You are discounting the role that selection (& the like) has in filtering random events.
There is of course, no ID science research programme and creationists continue to publish nothing that accounts for the diversity of life we see on this planet.
Vote:April 26th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
How did the theory of plate tectonics go down with the scientific community Chthoniid?
Vote:Through all the mocking, tut tutting, and poo pooing it finally gained acceptance, though to late for the guy that proposed it in the first place.
A person is not rational because they are a scientist, they are not immune to smugness and arrogance and are often prone to it.
And for that there is plenty of evidence.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:14 am
so clithoniid
Vote:What species became other species?
April 27th, 2010 at 7:23 am
@Shunda barunda
Plate tectonics was adopted slowly, partly because the mechanism for how plates could move was not known when the theory was first proposed. Without such a mechanism, noting the geological similarities of rocks in adjacent continents was simply an astute observation. Science is a discovery process, not one of instant revelations.
@MikeNZ
All current species are descended from other species. There is no known mechanism to stop this genetic changes accumulating to the point where a new species emerges.
Consider the following fossil evidence from the Adapids- http://bit.ly/cDn5Wf
You can see the number of fossils arranged by the geological column and by morphometrics (the x-axis). The number of fossils in each sample are listed by the small horizontal bars.
Vote:This shows evolution as a fairly smooth transition amongst the Pelycodus species, and thence to the Northarctus species.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Can you show any example of life on earth NOT looking exactly as if it’s evolved for earth’s environment?
Is that what you mean by “chance”? Anything that’s not done by an intelligent being? In that case, sorry, I guess it is chance. It’s just that I usually use “chance” to mean something random and unpredictable, whereas natural causality is not random. It is predictable.
The fact that you’re even asking this shows that I haven’t explained clearly enough for you to understand what I’m saying.
What you call “Goldilocks conditions” are those conditions which are right for life on earth. If life has evolved anywhere else in the universe, it will have evolved to be just right for life on its planet, and its own planet’s conditions will be “Goldilocks conditions” to that life, while being less than ideal for us.
Imagine it this way. Of all the planets in the universe, a small fraction (but still an enormous number) have the conditions necessary for life (self-replicating patterns of matter) to occur. If life does occur on any of them and survives long enough to evolve, its evolution will select for those variations that are most suited to the conditions of that planet.
So if there is a variation, and that variation eats and reproduces more effectively in the conditions of that planet than its competition, it will outcompete that competition and that particular variation will become dominant. And that will keep happening.
The longer this goes on for, the better suited to that planet’s conditions the life will be. After a few million years (probably much much sooner), you’ll be able to describe the conditions on that planet as being “Goldilocks conditions” for the life there.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 9:09 am
What are our “Goldilocks conditions”?
2,000ft deep in the ocean? Antarctica? The middle of Australia? The Amazon?
There are a wide range of conditions on Earth that various species have adapted to. Some are versatile and can re-adapt to changed locations, others are very site specific.
I doubt I would survive where I live without clothes and with the amount of natural gold locks I have (or had).
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 9:30 am
“Science is a discovery process, not one of instant revelations. ”
Yes Chthoniid, but regarding plate tectonics the hissing and mocking and belittling of it’s proponent by almost ALL of the scientific community was deafening.
Vote:And they were, all of them, WRONG. Their smugness and arrogance slowed down the process of discovering the truth.
What a courageous fellow Alfred Wegener was, he had “faith” in his ideas regardless of fierce opposition and having his “scientific method” attacked (where have we heard that before), it is a shame he died before he could have his theory vindicated as one of the greatest discoveries of modern times.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Ryan Sproull 8:55 am,
Can YOU show any example of life on earth NOT looking exactly as if it’s DESIGNED for earth’s environment?
But isn’t “random and unpredictable” the MO behind the theory of evolution? In effect; “random arrangements/events given enough time (billions of years) MUST inevitably result in order, and therefore life and the ordered universe we see around us.” In a nutshell evolution puts forward the idea that SOMEHOW order ‘evolved’ from disorder.
Which comes back to my original premise that either “natural causes” [are or] are NOT the result of “chance”. But either way we are still left with the ‘problem’ of what ‘drives’ the process forward; what gives it impetus?
And even IF we assume order can come out of disorder, what maintains the order? – what stops it just collapsing back to the ‘natural’ state of disorder? – the whole law of entropy problem. (eg cancers, disadvantageous genetic mutations, extinction of species, suns/stars wearing out, etc, etc.)
You’re begining to get all metaphysical on me, Ryan.
I like how you at least premise your statement with an IF; “If life has evolved anywhere else in the universe …” And once again you are ASSUMING evolution is a fact, and that IF it happened here (by chance), then it MUST have happened elsewhere (also by chance). And it’s a pretty BIG leap to assume that IF life exists elsewhere it would require DIFFERENT conditions to those we ‘enjoy’ here on earth.
The EVIDENCE that confronts me proves that if conditions for life aren’t EXACTLY like those on earth, then life won’t/can’t exist. And the fact that we haven’t found a planet even vaguely similar to earth, let alone with life on it too, leads me to believe that we are ‘unlikely’ to find life existing with ‘different’ conditions to earth. Once again; where’s the evidence for life, of ANY kind, existing elsewhere?
More metaphysical arguments built on ‘imagine’, ‘if’, ‘evolve’, ‘evolution’, ‘long time periods’, … and not a little crossing of the fingers IMHO.
Whoever said that Ryan Sproull was not a man of faith was lying!
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:25 am
No, Kris. I can’t. That’s my point. Being designed for earth’s environment and evolving within earth’s environment LOOK IDENTICAL.
Yes, but saying that something will inevitably result from something else is the very opposite of “unpredictability”.
Of evolution? Just chemicals interacting with each other, the way they do. There’s no “driving force” any more than there’s a driving force behind the configuration of Saturn’s rings. But if your question is, “Why is there any causation at all? Why does matter interact the way it does, or even exist in the first place?” – well, I don’t have any answers to that one, except to possibly doubt the meaningfulness of the question.
Eventually it will. The earth’s not a closed system – it’s getting energy from the sun, for a start. That’s what provides life on earth the ongoing energy to assimilate matter into the patterns that have evolved. Turn the sun off and evolution will grind to a halt, dissolving into mush.
I think it’s a pretty small assumption to make.
But you don’t know what extraterrestrial life might be like, so how can you be so certain that it would have to be earth-life-like?
What would that evidence look like?
They’re not metaphysical arguments, Kris. I’m trying to explain it enough to you that you will stop saying things that make it clear you don’t understand. Imagining is how you come to understand things. The word “if” is an element of just about every rational or logical statement there is. I am explaining elements of evolution to you. I don’t know how I can do that without using the words “evolution”, “evolve” and “long time periods”.
If you are unwilling to take the time and make the effort to understand what I am saying, at least say so and don’t just dismiss a significant amount of effort I put into explaining it to you with “oh, you used the word ‘imagine’ and now I won’t respond to any part of what you’ve said or make any attempt to understand it.”
Did you understand what I said? Do you have any questions? I’ll requote it here:
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Pete George 9:09 am,
Yup!
Once again, yes (to the relatively wide range of conditions).
But, and this is a big BUT, notice how they ALL have water and an oxygen rich atmosphere (or oxygen rich water), Pete, and some forms of life albeit limited (in some of your cited cases). And while perhaps the conditions are diverse BY earth’s standards, they are not very diverse compared to conditions on ALL OF THE OTHER PLANETS WE ARE SO FAR AWARE OF.
And like Ryan, when you use words like “adapted” you are ASSUMING macro evolution as fact. And also like Ryan, your faith in evolution being the answer to all you purvey, in my opinion, exceeds EVEN my faith in a creator God being both behind and maintaining His creation. I really do think you guys have MORE FAITH than I do. But sadly, your faith has no eternal value.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Kris,
We are explaining the theory of evolution’s explanation for why the Goldilocks conditions aren’t an argument for a designer. Such an explanation is always going to assume macroevolution as a fact. Could you explain aeronautics without assuming gravity as a fact?
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Interesting how a post on a politicians claims about his sexuality turns into a discussion about evolution.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Kris, I’m sure you’re aware of the organisms which live off hydrogen sulphide coming from subsea volcanic vents. Do you consider volcanic vents (very hot, incredible pressure, no light, no oxygen, salty etc) to be Goldilocks conditions?
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I don’t see evolution as the answer to all that I purvey, far from it, it’s one part of a wide range of science related to our existence. I have an open mind about it, especially at the extreme edges of what it covers. I’d be happy to modify my views if additional proven science justified it.
Show me any demonstrable evidence that backs up your faith in religion and I’ll consider it.
Show me any demonstrable evidence that backs up your belief that evolution is totally false and I’ll consider it. Comments like “gee, that looks complex, surely someone must have designed it” don’t come close.
There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence supporting evolution that you choose to ignore it. I doubt that will change, you don’t want it to change, not because of science or evidence.
What is so frightening about changing your view based on new and increasing knowledge? The world wasn’t cast in stone.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:54 am
So you’re saying that Hitler evolved to be a gay politician? Interesting. I like the cut of your jib.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Yes, AG, but they are related – both are misrepresented by religious dogma and an unwillingness to understand.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
If evolution is a process life has followed, it seems successful random features in a particular animal over ages of time becomes the norm – survival of the fittest – chance, Designer or whatever. Then you have human relationships which Christ’s teachings advocated should be compassionate – not self centred, self motivated or self serving – so is that not a survival of the fittest?
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:57 am
It’s kind of like evolution – it seems incredible at first but it just keeps happening.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Haven’t you heard about Hell, Pete?
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Evolution is really survival of the fittest with a side order of survival of the fit enough. Humans would be fitter for life on earth if they didn’t get skin cancer from sun exposure, but that’s not enough of a hindrance to wipe us out, so it’s survival of the fit enough.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Ryan Sproull 11:25 am,
So you at least admit the possibility that life COULD be the result of a designer; a supreme intelligence?
I guess I am alluding to causation. At least you acknowledge that the physical laws that govern the universe, including chemical reactions, etc., are foundational to evolutionary arguments. Are you uncomfortable about the fact that you have no explanation for ‘causation’? And if evolution is an argument FOR origins wouldn’t your argument in this regard; that evolution has no answer to causation, introduce a dilemma to your faith in evolution? And therefore lead you to look for alternative explanantions for the existence of matter, life, and the laws that govern the known universe?
OK, the sun is one essential, but what of the others? – what gave earth it’s oxygen rich atmosphere, and positioned it ‘just right’ to have liquid water, let alone that it has abundant water in the first place, when NO OTHER planets we know of have either of these two elements and/or condtions? Ie What ’caused’ earth to have abundant water and oxygen?
And of course I don’t know that there are even conditions suitable for extraterrestrial life to exist elsewhere, whether similar to earth life or not. But neither do you. Evidence to date indicates that earth life, and earth conditions, are unique in the universe. And that life CANNOT exist outside of earthlike conditions. Once again we must come back to the evidence. And we would see the evidence in the form of self replicating (and generally accepted) carbon based lifeforms.
Oh I understand WHAT you’re saying, Ryan, I just think you’re wrong.
I guess when I see people regurgitating the old evolutionary mantra of ‘imagine’, ‘if’, ‘evolve’, ‘long time periods’, et al, and that they expect it to be swallowed hook, line and sinker, it just wears a bit thin.
And by the way, Ryan, I too put time and effort into both considering your arguments, and formulating my own. I thought you would at least give me that much credit.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Of course.
Evolution is an explanation for how those complex patterns of matter we call “life” develop over time. The origin of life is a separate question. The origin of the universe (if it had a beginning) is a separate question. The origin of causation (if such a notion is intelligible) is a separate question.
So it’s not a problem for evolution to have no answer to the origin of the universe, any more than it’s a problem for economic theories or aerodynamics. Their scope is narrower than that.
Having no answer to the question, “Where did causality come from?” doesn’t bother me, though I find it interesting to question the intelligibility of the question itself.
Given enough planets in the universe, all kinds of things become inevitable for practical purposes. “Planets we know of” is a tiny fraction of “planets we have good reason to believe exist”. There’s probably water on others. But while water and an oxygen-rich environment may have been the conditions in which earth life evolved, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of other kinds of life. As Malcolm pointed out before, we’ve discovered life on earth in environments that are practically alien to the conditions you’re describing.
Perhaps, but we must also be aware of how limited our knowledge of the universe is. We barely know anything about a fraction of our own galaxy, let alone all of the other galaxies out there. This flash animation gives some idea of the scales involved.
I think it’s premature to say no other earthlike planets exist, let alone that no other life-producing planets exist.
I do. It’s just that when I said that other kinds of planets could produce other kinds of life, you came back with, “Show me another planet just like earth,” which really didn’t apply to what I was saying, so I tried to explain further and you dismissed it all for containing words that are pretty necessary to the explanation.
My point is that the suitability of earth conditions to earth life does not rule out life evolving on earth, because the suitability of earth conditions to earth life is exactly what we would expect to see if life did evolve on earth. The assumed rarity of earth-like conditions only points to rarity of life if there’s reason to believe no other conditions could give rise to life. And I don’t think we know even remotely enough about the universe to be able to rule that out.
That would be like examining everyone in a small village, finding that only one has green eyes, and declaring that only one person in the world has green eyes.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Parenthetically, the Drake equation estimates that there are about 200 planets with intelligent life in each galaxy, but only around 1% of them with the willingness/ability to communicate into space.
Even with very small fractions of solar systems having planets, and then having planets that are in a range capable of supporting life (as far as our anthropic understanding goes), there is still a large enough sample size to generate multiple occurrences of life.
Extrapolate to the billions of galaxies in the universe, and it may well be that life is very rare- but there do not seem to be any grounds to assume that it is unique to earth.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
The question is not so much whether or not evolution can be proved/disproved but whether the private beliefs of an individual are as destructive and dangerous as certain intellectuals claim.
Vote:I think it absurd the way Dawkins and chums go on and on on how it is so important for everyone to believe in Darwinism, it just isn’t important.
They have stood in the way of scientists with high qualifications simply because they happen to be Christians, they are by default advocating a second class citizenship status for those that are of a different position to themselves.
Intellectual bigotry.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Kris, claiming earth life is unique in the universe based on how much we know about the universe is like me claiming one pixel on your screen of the first word of the Bible doesn’t prove there is a God so there mustn’t be a god – relatively, that’s how little we know about the universe.
Shunda, that is a very different question. I agree that evolution isn’t important to me, I find it interesting but it would make little if any difference to my life if knew nothing about it. But the process of discovery associated with evolution science is an important part of the advance of human knowledge.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“Extrapolate to the billions of galaxies in the universe, and it may well be that life is very rare- but there do not seem to be any grounds to assume that it is unique to earth.”
Tautology!
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Pete, until we actually find life on another planet it would appear that life is unique to this planet, there is currently more evidence for Kris’s position.
Vote:Then factor into what we know about the remarkable features of our planet (and what we don’t yet know) and the evidence seems astonishing that Planet earth is the way it is.
It turns out that the structure and nature of our planet is not all that typical, it is a special place and one of the gems of the universe.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Shunda,
“Special” is a bit emotive. In some respects, Earth is unique. In some respects, every planet and formation of matter in the universe is unique.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
No, Kris’s argument is based on a massive God-of-the-gaps assertion, not evidence. And to make that argument you have to ignore a number of determinations that adjacent solar systems do have planetary systems that could support life (e.g. Linweaver 2004).
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Chthoniid 1:37 pm,
There’s a BIG difference between ‘could’ and ‘does’, Chthoniid.
And YOU accuse me of not basing my arguments on ‘evidence’, and then have the gall to cite some “planetary systems that could support life” – without any evidence!
Obviously some ‘evidence’ is more equal than other ‘evidence’ – or should that be ‘lack of evidence’, eh Chthoniid?
As I said before; the amount of ‘faith’ you guys exhibit is truly astounding. And don’t tell me evolution isn’t a religion – you guys are the proof it is.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Again, we’re now basically talking about the origin of life, which is a separate question from evolution. The theory of evolution is based on observation of the evidence of the history of life on earth.
Conjecture about life on other planets and the origin of life on this planet is generally a matter of educated guesses based on the evidence at hand. In this case our knowledge of how many planets there are out there and our awareness of the infinitely small portion of them we know anything about.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
You can check the reference in Linweaver, Kris.
You made strong claim about the uniqueness of life on this planet. That uniqueness is alleged to be based on properties of this solar system. The properties of this solar system do not appear to be unique, even accepting that our methods of exploring this galaxy are limited. Ergo, the presumption that we have unique conditions is not met.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
As Chthoniid says Kris has absolutely no evidence for their being no life elsewhere in the universe. Neither do I. So it’s an unknown. Kris could say “I can’t see how there could be” and I could say ‘I can’t see why there couldn’t be” but both are basing that on nothing of substance. We simply don’t know.
There is a chance that my guess will be proven, Kris’ guess cannot be proven.
I think that logic suggests there is a reasonable possibility of there being other life, if there is life on Earth why shouldn’t it be elsewhere – God created or not.
There’s even a possibility that when we die we reincarnate as a different lifeform in a different part of the universe – call it heaven if you like, we now know heaven isn’t simply in the clouds. But simply finding that there is other forms of life elsewhere in the universe is far more likely.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Ryan Sproull 1:30 pm,
Of course, “every planet and formation of matter in the universe is unique” IF they are an expression of a unique intelligence who made them. But that doesn’t mean they are ‘special’, as Shunda stated, in the way that earth is special. Earth being the ONLY planet, to our knowledge, that supports life.
One could go as far as saying earth is God’s ‘special’ creation, just as man is God’s special creation.
Vote:And similarly, each of you reading this are ‘special’ and ‘unique’, and bear the hallmark of the creator who made you – special indeed!
April 27th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Many people do go as far as saying that. Based on beliefs but no evidence.
God may have just placed an idea in my head to link to this: God’s recipe
Vote:That isn’t a dig at anyone here, I just think it’s funny.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I can’t get the link to work Pete.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
You’re saying that life is special for reasons beyond simply being rare, since you think Earth is more special than other rare planets.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I stuffed up, try this recipe.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Ryan Sproull 3:28 pm,
Indeed, Ryan.
Man is created expressly in God’s image – no other creature enjoys this exalted position. And as I believe Man is uniquely situated on planet earth, with earth uniquely tuned for human (and indeed all) life, then both man and earth are ‘special’ in God’s eyes.
When God speaks of His creation He expresses it as “the heaven and the earth” – God is essentially saying, “Planet earth PLUS all the other stars, suns, moons, quasars, and planets”. And when Christ came it was to planet earth; the place of man’s residence, and it was here that He died for the sins of the ONLY creature made in God’s image; Mankind. Salvation is offered to man alone; not to any other earthbound creature; not to angels, not to nephilim, and certainly not to aliens (which I believe do not exist).
There is no hint in the Bible that there is life elsewhere. And remember the Bible also states that the ENTIRE creation fell as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin – which they committed on planet earth. And so your conditions being ‘good enough’ for life (on earth) hints at the fact that PRIOR to the fall conditions were in fact absolutely ideal on earth. Remember the Bible speaks of the creation groaning [Rom 8:22] as a result of the fall of man. But when the sin of man, and the consequences of that sin have been finally dealt with and put away, God will make a NEW “heaven and earth”; one not tainted with sin. And man, now redeemed and glorified in Christ, will be UNABLE to sin. And so neither he nor the creation will fall, and be corrupted as a result, again.
[Do you get the sense that I'm looking forward to a sinless eternity in God's presence?]
I really do believe that man is so special (unique), and earth as his home is likewise special (unique), that when we look at the heavens and realise that there is no other life out there we can begin to see why God put so much effort into firstly making us, and secondly redeeming us through Christ (to those that will come), that we might have fellowship with Him for all eternity.
So yeah, earth is ‘special’, but mankind is REALLY ‘special’ in God’s sight.
Vote:April 27th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Kris k:when we look at the heavens and realise that there is no other life out there
And what would your response if we did find life elsewhere?
There are already lines of evidence that hint that there was and might still be life on Mars for, example, and there is something puzzling, possibly biological, going on in the atmosphere of venus. Many other locations in our solar system are potentially habitable.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Yes, from a Christian perspective. But while those may be beliefs you hold once you believe Christianity, they are not reasons to believe Christianity in the first place, or reasons to believe intelligent design in the first place.
One does not think, “Mankind is special in God’s eyes, therefore the world was intelligently designed and God exists.” You have to believe in that God exists and designed the earth before you can believe that mankind is special in God’s eyes.
So if you’re looking for reasons to believe that the world was designed rather than the result of natural causes, “Earth and mankind are special in God’s eyes” can’t be one of them. You could try for “Earth and mankind are extremely rare, therefore they were designed” – an argument that fails for other reasons.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
chiz 6:24 pm, date
I would be TRULY amazed if life were found to be elsewhere. But based on evidence to date I won’t be holding my breath. And I personally doubt whether there is anywhere in our solar system which is “potentially habitable”, and similarly the entire universe. As I’ve said earlier in this thread; until we find a planet essentially identical to earth with its ‘Goldilocks’ conditions, I really doubt the likelihood of finding any subsequently symbiotic forms of life.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Ryan Sproull 9:07 am,
I actually believe in Intelligent Design based on the scientific evidence which confronts me. Biblical revelation just adds creedence to my scientific views. And as I’ve said before; I believe there is perfect harmony between God’s word and (true) scientific discovery and analysis. Which, of course, makes perfect sense if God made it all in the first place.
While we may debate about whether or not Man is any more special compared to other earth creatures from a scientific stance, few would question that man has dominion of the earth, and ALL the other creatures resident here – a view which lines up perfectly with the role God gave to man as expressed in the Bible.
But Ryan, where would you stand were both mankind and earth not only rare, but WERE in fact unique? Would you THEN be open to acknowledge that they might also be ‘special’ ? And if so, that their very existence may at least HINT at an Intelligent Designer? And given that, that there is ALSO a purpose for our (mankind’s) existence? And we should perhaps investigate what that purpose may be? And perhaps that if we were made with a PURPOSE then maybe the Intelligence that made us has revealed Himself; both physically in human history, and by some form of recorded communication?
I think you see where I’m going with this – especially as you’re “familiar with the material”.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Ah Kris you’re kinda sweet in a naive, goofy kinda way.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
It is estimated there are about 200,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way (about average for a galaxy).
It is conservatively estimated there are 100,000,000,000,000 trillion galaxies in the known universe.
That is (conservatively) 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems/stars.
Isn’t that a lot of opportunities for there being other solar systems that are approximately like ours?
Vote:Why would they all be different? Some would have to be similar to each other.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
pete@ “Why would they all be different?”
Because God said. In the Bible. Do you really need to ask??!
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Kris – “I actually believe in Intelligent Design based on the scientific evidence which confronts me.”
Does not that scientific evidence all also say the earth is millions of years old – that the Grand Canyon is hundreds of thousands of years old, not that it just looks that way – and that this conflicts with your young earth beliefs?
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Or an observation made by men when writing the Bible. Similar things are said in the Bhagavad Gita and the Qu’ran – does that make them true? We don’t need to debate about whether or not humans are more “special” than anything else from a scientific stance, because “being special” doesn’t enter into scientific evaluation at all.
You have failed to show how life on earth is “special” in any way other than being “rare”, and have instead just expressed your own religious belief. The original reason you brought this up was to argue in favour of life on earth being designed. You’ll need to find something else.
Being so rare as to be unique doesn’t suddenly make “scientifically special” a phrase that means anything at all. So no. Plenty of things in the universe are unique. That doesn’t mean they require supernatural explanations.
Nope, obviously.
Yes, and it’s “nope” all the way down, because you started your string of thought with a flawed step. Your argument has no legs unless you can show…
1. What “being special” means without assuming the truth of what you’re arguing for.
2. That something being unique makes it “special” in this way.
3. That being “special” demands a magical/supernatural explanation rather than a natural one.
Life may be common in the universe, or rare, or unique to Earth. None of those possibilities demands a magical explanation any more than any other phenomenon in the universe does.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Kris k:And I personally doubt whether there is anywhere in our solar system which is “potentially habitable”, and similarly the entire universe
Not true. The atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all contain the chemicals needed for life and contain regions with the right temperature. They are potentially habitable. This is a categorical etsbalished fact. Whether there is anything actually living there is unkown but they are, on the basis of what we already know, potentially habitable.
The higher parts of the atmosphere of venus have the right temperature and contains at least some of the chemicals needed for life. If we took an acid tolerant bacteria from earth and genetically modified it to be able to fix its own nitrogen it would probably be able to survive there.
The subsurface of mars is almost certainly habitable.
Many of the moons in the outer solar system appear to contain liquid water inside them and might turn out to be habitable deep inside them.
Many kilometers undergound, away from the blistering heat or coldness of their surfaces, Mercury and Pluto may be also be habitable.
The net result kris is that we already KNOW of environments in our solar sytem that are potentially habitable and we know of many others that look like they might tuen out to be habtiable with a bit more investigation.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Pete George 1:23 pm,
So assuming the above figures are correct; you say, “That is (conservatively) 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems/stars.” Which is ONLY 2×10^25 (2×10 to the power of 25).
Lets see what Professor Harold Morowitz has to say:
And Morowitz accepts the, so called, common wisdom of the universe being 14 billion years old. Kind of puts your “lot[s] of opportunities” into perspective, Pete.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Kris
Vote:remember pearls before swine mate.
this isn’t about origin of life but something much bigger.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Yvette 1:34 pm,
Some scientists hold the above view, others do not. Many actually have revised their time frame down; some in the order of only tens of thousands of years – not millions or billions. Which aligns pretty well with a biblical young earth/creation of the order of 6,000 years.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
That’s a sad indictment on the quality of your reference Kris. Just the usual, pure, unadulterated creationist bullshit I see all the time. Make up some numbers and hope that your audience will be baffled into accepting the claim.
There is no biochemical model of abiogenesis that claims that the first cell was assembled in one step. Someone is ‘lying for Jesus’.
The (simplified) steps are- ->polymers->replicating polymers->hypercycle->protobiont->’bacteria’.
Pulling together a peptide chain of 12-13 amino-acids (first step) when much larger mocleucles form naturally all the time isn’t improbable. You know what’s really impossible? That enough Na and Cl atoms would come together just by pure chance to form a lattice-like crystal, sufficiently regularly that we would have 260m tonnes of it form each year ion earth. Hurray, you’ve proven that table-salt can’t exist either.
You make noreference to the number of parallel trials, no reference to the starting conditions, no reference to the temperature of the reactions, & no mention of the probability distribution used.
It is absolutely appalling that people have so little integrity that they are prepared to lie so outrageously and without conscience about the science of abiogensis.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
MikeNZ 5:09 pm,
I know, I know … flogging a dead horse and all that.
Vote:But hopefully someone in the wider audience may ponder some of these things, and as a result, perhaps, reap an ‘eternal phase shift’, so to speak.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
God you’re a good man.
Vote:sad about all the others though.
Have a good one.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Chthoniid 5:17 pm,
I’m pretty sure Professor Harold Morowitz isn’t a Christian, or even a man of faith – in fact he says as much. So how exactly is this “the usual, pure, unadulterated creationist bullshit” ?
Do you disagree with his figures and conclusions?
Vote:I mean the guy is a “specialist in molecular biophysics and biochemistry”. And his peers say of him, “one of the world’s seminal thinkers about the origin of life within the context of the physics of our universe”.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Ryan and Chiz,
You both may be interested in what Professor Harold Morowitz has to say regarding the odds of life coming about as outlined to Pete George in my 5:02 pm comment.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
You are quoting from Ian Wishart’s Divinity Code?
I’m not finding much on Harold Morowitz, what peers regard him as “one of the world’s seminal thinkers about the origin of life within the context of the physics of our universe”?
I did find this:
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
This is interesting:
McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project
Testimony of Dr. Harold Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics, Yale University (Plaintiffs Witness)
(some exerts, the whole testimony is worth a read)
Q: Now, you have been explaining why the creation science dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life on this planet is unscientific. Is there any other aspect of the creation science treatment of the origins of life on this planet that is similarly unscientific?
A: Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to be somewhat deceptive.
Q: Would you explain what you mean?
A: In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.
They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible.
But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.
Q: Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, is the dual model approach to the teaching of origins of life on this planet a scientific approach to that subject?
A: No.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because as I just stated, one of the explanations lies outside of science. It is a supernatural explanation, and, therefore, its investigation lies outside the bounds of science.
Q: Are you aware of any creation science publication of this theory of the origins of life in any reputable scientific journal?
A: I’m not aware of it in any of the journals that I read.
Q: Doctor Morowitz, we have been speaking mostly about the book, Scientific Creationism. What is your opinion about the other creation-science literature you have read, with respect to its attributes as science?
A: Well, I think it’s all very comparable. I think this is a paradigm example, and insofar as this is not science, the rest of the literature also is not science.
Q: Doctor Morowitz, in your professional opinion, does the creation-science treatment of abiogenesis, the origins of life from non-life, have the attributes of science?
A: No.
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_morowitz.html
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I hope I will be excused for long quotes at the end of an old thread. The ruling from the above case sounds like it was quite influential:
McLean v. Arkansas ruling
Judge William Overton’s ruling handed down on January 5, 1982, concluded that “creation-science” as defined in Arkansas Act 590 “is simply not science”. The judgement defined the essential characteristics of science as being:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. It is falsifiable.
and found that “creation science” failed to meet these essential characteristics for the following reasons.
1. Sudden creation “from nothing” is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.
2. “insufficiency of mutation and natural selection” is an incomplete negative generalization.
3. “changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds” fails as there is no scientific definition of “kinds”, the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.
4. “separate ancestry of man and apes” is a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
5. Catastrophism and any kind of Genesis Flood depend upon supernatural intervention, and cannot be explained by natural law.
6. “Relatively recent inception” has no scientific meaning, is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
7. No recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creation science theory as described in the Act, and though some witnesses suggested that the scientific community was “close-minded” and so had not accepted the arguments, no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused, and suggestions of censorship were not credible.
8. A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory.
9. While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation. The creationists’ methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions stated in [the Act] Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it.
The Act took a two-model approach to teaching identical to the approach put forward by the Institute for Creation Research, which assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Creationists take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism. The judgement found this to be simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose.
The judge concluded that “Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact”, and that it violated the First amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Morowitz took a turn towards religion in 2002.
The paper Kris and Wishart are trying to channel is: Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99). The brutal reality is they are so determined to be ignorant of this paper thatb their deceit is transparent.
The Morowitz calculation has nothing to do with the origin of life.
It is a hypothetical instance relating to the amount of energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium- a condition which has never existed on Earth. The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system.
The fact that Kris cannot explain or even mention the assumptions behind this model- and tries to make his case solely on the qualifications of Morowitz- underscores how intellectually dishonest these assertions are.
There are no plausible estimates of the probability of abiogenesis simply because the initial conditions are largely unknown. Anybody prepared to claim otherwise is lying for Jesus.
Vote:April 28th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
“Anybody prepared to claim otherwise is lying for Jesus.”
Still can’t figure out how it happened though can we, I understand your frustration Chthoniid, but you surely understand that this issue is something that the masses will never have a clue about because most people just don’t care enough or have the time to understand the research. People can get the “jist’ of it though, do you think that is legitimate?
My opinion is that God is not a “zapper” zap-plant, zap-fish etc. I believe that the revealed nature of the Christian God is one that builds upon prior achievements, and always redeems past destruction.
Vote:Interestingly in Genesis when God created life there was no “zapping” but a fascinating statement; “let the land produce”.