I am honored, really, to have this opportunity. This morning a fellow calling himself Thom decided to try his hand at making an argument for Creationism / Intelligent design on the Logical Fallacies page of this blog (isn’t that ironic?). I read through his diatribe and decided that it would be remiss of me not to respond, after all this fellow doesn’t seem to have copied and pasted from any other sources (I verified this by searching for particular phrases in his comment on Google).
Well Thom, I hope you are paying attention because here follows your education. You say;
“The fact that no life has ever been discovered anywhere other than Earth does not disprove that life on our planet exists only because life adapted to our environment, but it has to raise the question. If it doesn’t science is dishonest with itself.”
Let me stop you right there Thom because the first premise of your argument, the very bedrock on which you build your diatribe, is false. We are investing huge amounts of money and many thousands on man hours in the search for any kind of life, from the simplest molecules converting chemicals within their bodies to fuel their metabolisms right up to great hulking civilizations, in our solar system and beyond. SETI, the Mars Rovers, the Cassini Huygens probe, the ground based telescopes doing spectroscopic analysis of exoplanet atmospheres, and the proposed PLATO Satellite are just some of the examples of this exciting field. I do not think that a biologist, an astronomer or any other reasonable scientist worth his salt would claim with any confidence that the Earth is the only place in the galaxy that can support life. Nor would they be so foolish as to claim that life could ONLY evolve here.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here;
“If it were any farther away, the moon would not have enough pull on the oceans and life in the oceans (as we know it) would die off.”
I think you need to provide evidence for the claim that the moon’s gravitational pull caused life to form on Earth. You might find that hard to do.
“Evolution argues that life adapted to this environment, evolving to support itself in the temperature we live in, etc. If this were true, why wouldn’t such a theory suggest that there should also be life on other planets, especially those near to us?”
The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory, a beautiful, simple, successful theory about how life evolved on Earth. It has nothing to do with exobiology and by confusing the two subjects you reveal the depths of your ignorance. Common sense, on the other hand, as well as the Drake Equation, by no means rule out the possibility of life evolving elsewhere in the cosmos. In fact it would be foolish and shortsighted to believe that life does NOT exist in other biospheres. The FACT that we haven’t found it yet does not mean that we won’t at some point in the future.
“The FACT that the Earth is where it is and there is life on it, and the FACT that the moon is in the exact location it needs to be to keep the oceans clean on the Earth, and the FACT that the 23 1/2 degree tilt of the earth in relationship to the revolution of the Earth around the sun creates the perfection of the seasons and climates for the northern and southern hemispheres on the Earth SHOULD suffice a scientific theory that there is an intelligence to why Earth supports life and nothing else does.”
The moon keeps the oceans clean? What do you mean by that?
None of there facts supports your hypothesis that life on earth was created by a supreme intelligence. You can’t string together a pearl necklace of things you think make the Earth special and then declare that “God did it”, because, like a pearl, your argument is oyster shit.
“That the Earth supports life while no other celestial body does is scientific theory ever as much as evolution and gravity are”
“To believe that it all just happened this way by accident is not only scientifically ridiculous but any scientist with a working brain would have to lie to himself to ignore the facts that our system is the only one that has the ability to support life”
The problem with your statement above is that it is wrong. You misrepresent the scientific position, the theory of evolution by natural selection, you do this in an effort to make the theory seem weak and easily falsifiable which it is not. Why do you do this? To argue your personal conviction that life was created by an intelligent being. Don’t lie to me, you insult me when you think that I might buy your claim that
“I’m NOT trying to prove a religion based on disproving evolution”
Your argument is as graceful as a stately horse with three legs missing. Come back and try again when you can tell the difference between a fact, a hypothesis and a theory. And try to get a better understanding of the theory of evolution. Carl Zimmer’s book Evolution would be a great place to start.