Re: [asa] [Asa] Rare Earth hypothesis (and it's theological implication)

> The Rare Earth hypothesis is explained in detail in the book
> Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, by Peter Ward, a
> geologist and paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer and
> astrobiologist.
>
Simon Conway Morris, a paleontologist and a Christian, has expressed a
somewhat similar view.

> The Rare Earth hypothesis is the contrary of the principle of mediocrity
> (also called the Copernican principle), whose best known recent advocates
> include Carl Sagan and Frank Drake. The principle of mediocrity maintains
> that the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system,
> located in an unexceptional region of a large but conventional barred-spiral
> galaxy.

In addition to the assumptions relating to the frequency of habitable
planets, this commits a popular error. A random sample out of a
distribution reasonably resembling a normal distribution is more
likely to resemble the average than the extreme. However, it is false
to therefore conclude that a sample not selected at random must
resemble the average. About 14 years or so ago, someone got a letter
to the editor in Science published by making this error (claiming that
statistically, the chances that a randomly selected human is the Pope
is negligable implies that the Pope is probably not human). Hume's
argument that miracles are rare, therefore in every situation I can
assume there is no miracle makes the same error. So does claiming
that the Earth, solar system, universe, etc. must be a typical
example.

> Do you agree or disagree with this hypothesis?

I don't think we have the data to decide whether habitable planets are
common or rare nor the odds of life or intelligent life developing on
a habitable planet.

> Either
> 1) God have have let the planetary system evolve freely and our solar
> system is a product of randomness... as well the earth. Life and biological
> have adapted to the condition of our solar system and the earth. When God
> made the big bang He knew the entire Universe would be fertile and that due
> to necessity and chance life would finally developed.
> or
> 2) God had intervene in the formation of our solar system and the earth so
> life would naturally evolved on our planet (which is fertile)

or
God designed of the universe, its laws, and its properties so as to
specifically bring about the features of our solar system, including
its inhabitants, but without "intervention" any different from His
ordinary sustenance and governance over creation. (This leaves open
the question of exactly how things such as quantum uncertainties work
in relation to ordinary sustenance and governance).

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.