Is Earth special?: Found! Twenty light years away - the new earth ... or not?

According to Britain's Daily Mail, a recently discovered planet

appears to confirm the suspicions of most astronomers that the universe is swarming with Earth-like worlds.

I would be very surprised if most astronomers believed that, considering the odds. A few planets like Earth? Sure, that stands to reason. But "swarming" - not likely.

Even the hyper Mail admits,

Of the 220 or so exoplanets found to date, most have either been too big, made of gas rather than solid material, far too hot, or far too cold for life to survive.

The hype is, "We don't yet know much about this planet, but scientists believe that it may be the best candidate so far for supporting extraterrestrial life." But that's not saying much so far because none of the other planets are anywhere close.

It would be nice if this was really the new Earth, as the Mail huffs, but ... this planet orbits a very old red dwarf star (Gliese 581), which raises the serious question of how many heavy elements it has. Heavy elements are thought necessary for life as we understand it. Older stars, formed earlier, have less of them to give, and perhaps none. Wait for further info before making your travel plans.

Intellectual freedom: Science historian weighs in on Gonzalez tenure denial

Ted Davis, a Messiah U science historian who has often attacked ID and the ID guys in general, had this to say, among other thngs, about the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, in a letter to Iowa State University's president:

From where I sit, the impact of Dr. Avalos’[*] deeds is not hard to see: he poisoned the environment for Dr. Gonzalez, by undermining his academic reputation and isolating him at Iowa State*and all based on a book that is actually one of the best popular books about science in recent years. I am an expert on the history of religion and science in the United States (my current project on modern America has received significant support from the National Science Foundation), and in my opinion Dr. Gonzalez’ treatment of historical topics in The Privileged Planet is far superior to the treatment of comparable topics in Sagan’s famous series. His debunking of the so-called “Copernican principle,” associated with the late Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley, is an excellent corrective to the false view of Shapley, Sagan, and many other scientists that Copernicus somehow “demoted” humanity by moving us out of the center of the universe. As Dennis Danielson has shown decisively (in an ! article in American Journal of Physics and in The Book of the Cosmos), Copernicus and his followers believed no such thing, and Gonzalez’ clear explanation of the details helps the record straight for many in the general public. A leading historian of astronomy, Owen Gingerich of Harvard (a former student of Shapley), justly praises Dr. Gonzalez for this in his recent book, God’s Universe (Harvard University Press, 2006), itself yet one more example of a scientist offering a religious interpretation of his work to the general public. I have to wonder*if Professor Gingerich were also a junior faculty member at Iowa State, would Dr. Avalos now be organizing another petition drive against this particular book, for its defense of a designed universe?

Well, yes, probably he would, Ted. That's what this is all about. People who are not materialists or are willing to question materialism or support or praise or protect anyone who is not a materialist are supposed to just shut up and die. And the only important question is, where was any given non-materialist while all this was happening. All the rest is, uh, academic.

By all means, read the rest of his letter excerpt here.

I’m not completely surprised by this because Davis - whom I have accused in the past of being a mugwump* - has expressed distinct discomfort in the past with the right of people like religion prof Hector Avalos to poison the atmosphere with persecutions against working scientists like Gonzalez.

[*]Yes, Avalos is indeed the bowdlerizing little crank who wants to cut out the violent parts out of the Bible. Honest. Sigh.

And THAT guy got dozens and dozens of faculty to sign his petition against Gonzalez? Yes, it is long past time someone opened a window on American academic life ….

*A mugwump has his head on one side of the fence and his wump on the other. I withdraw the accusation. - d.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

NEW!! Evolution in the light of intelligent design - look up intelligent design topics here.

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

Anti-God crusade ... no, really! My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

Catholic Church A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

Summary of my reaction to Privileged Planet: To the stake with them all!

It is high time someone perpetrated a heresy like this, but of course they will have to go to the stake!

1. Privileged Planet is an excellent film and should be widely shown. It is a shame that the Smithsonian was scared into withdrawing its original support by a pack of yahoos who are a disgrace to a free society. The Smithsonian public affairs department should have begun every response to a complaint with “Have you seen the film? Can you describe what you are complaining about?” That would blow the Darwinbots off promptly. If the Smithsonian is indeed planning new policies, as reported, that should definitely be one.

Service note: If you are looking for the rest of my extended review of Privileged Planet, go here. If you are looking for information on the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one will bring you up to date. My extended review aims at determining exactly why the Washington Post thinks it is a “religious” film, or anyway, more so or in some different way than Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

2. The film is religious throughout in exactly the same sense as Carl Sagan’s Cosmos is religious. It makes and defends a statement about the nature of the universe. But the Church of St. Carl, whose doctrine is metaphysical naturalism (nature is without meaning or purpose) is the established religion of the educated elite in the United States. The Washington Post so totally accepts the Church of St. Carl’s teachings as a norm that they don’t even see them as religion. Those teachings are “just the way things are.” The Posties think that Privileged Planet is religion because it addresses the actual science evidence and comes to an opposite conclusion.

3. Science evidence doesn’t matter much to the Church of St. Carl. I suspect that that is because the evidence is mostly on Richards and Gonzalez’s side. But as long as the Church of St. Carl remains the United States’s established church, evidence will not be entertained.

4. While the film does not discuss evolution, it implies that evolution may not be fully naturalistic, purposeless, and accidental. It would be hard to overestimate how emotionally attached the Church of St. Carl’s members are to fully naturalistic evolution, even though the tide of evidence is running against it — or perhaps precisely because the tide of evidence is running against it.

I’m looking forward to the East Coast premiere at the Smithsonian on June 23, whether or not the Smithsonian likes it.

I personally believe that the Church of St. Carl should be disestablished for its own good. Science institutions should not be in the business of supporting only films that deny meaning and purpose and attempting to suppress films that document it.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Earth is a very special planet

Is the Earth just “Nowheresville”? Check out some of the planets in other solar systems in our galaxy? (Planets that orbit stars other than our sun. )

BALTIMORE - Of the more than 130 planets found around distant stars, a large number have highly elliptical orbits, crazy oblong shapes that have surprised theorists who try to explain the configurations with near collisions or perturbing disks of gas.

An elliptic orbit is characterized by the eccentricity, which is how much a planet’s distance from its star varies as it carves out a year. Most of the planets in our solar system have relatively low eccentricities, less than about 5 percent (tiny Pluto being a notable exception and considered not really a planet by some astronomers).

By contrast, the average eccentricity of extrasolar planets is about 25 percent. And these are not Plutos. They are typically more massive than Jupiter.

Eccentricity is bad for a planet because it leads to summers that are hotter than the boiling point of water and winters that are 100 degrees below zero. Many life forms, including me, could not stand that.
Our solar system is apparently an exception, not a rule, and earth is very unusual. Contrary to the Principle of Mediocrity (we must assume we are not special), we are actually very lucky.

Learn more about my book By Design or by Chance?