It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
By Lawrence Krauss
To the editor:
I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example:
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.
By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there. There is no presented evidence in the OP or from those scientists though to say that they are correct. So their opinions are just that, opinions. And you (well wsj) are using an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting them.
By the way, Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" as a derisive comment about it because he didn't believe the theory was true.
John Lennox is a Christian apologist. It isn't surprising that he'd argue in favor of design.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.
By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there. There is no presented evidence in the OP or from those scientists though to say that they are correct. So their opinions are just that, opinions. And you (well wsj) are using an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting them.
By the way, Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" as a derisive comment about it because he didn't believe the theory was true.
John Lennox is a Christian apologist. It isn't surprising that he'd argue in favor of design.
Your argument is weak, the data is strong. Going from a 1 with 24 zeros down to a few thousand places in the universe where conditions are right for life doesn't leave much room for Dawinism to perform it's hokus pokus. The downward curve is very dramatic as more and more of the complex precise combinations of prerequisites required to have a life sustaining planet become known.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.
By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there. There is no presented evidence in the OP or from those scientists though to say that they are correct. So their opinions are just that, opinions. And you (well wsj) are using an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting them.
By the way, Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" as a derisive comment about it because he didn't believe the theory was true.
John Lennox is a Christian apologist. It isn't surprising that he'd argue in favor of design.
Your argument is weak, the data is strong. Going from a 1 with 24 zeros down to a few thousand places in the universe where conditions are right for life doesn't leave much room for Dawinism to perform it's hokus pokus. The downward curve is very dramatic as more and more of the complex precise combinations of prerequisites required to have a life sustaining planet become known.
First off, learn scientific notation. It is 1 * 10 ^24 or 1 e 24 not 1 with 24 zeros (this just shows how unscientific this article is for using such stupid notation). Second off, the amount of places that can sustain life hasn't been reduced to a few thousand places in the universe. That wasn't even said in the article, you just made that number up in your head. We have no idea what the exact conditions are for life, not to mention the exact number of planets or life habitable locations in the universe. In fact the number of known planets that can support life has increased, not decreased. You apparently haven't been staying up to date with science, namely astronomy.
Using probability to prove god is ridiculous since if the odds aren't 0%, then it WILL happen given a large enough space and large enough timespan. Heck, it can even happen more than once. Which means that according to probability there could totally be another earth somewhere out in the universe with humans on it having this same conversation. The universe is SO vast that even the smallest probabilities are destined to happen at some point.
I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
Okay... Maybe I am just dense so can someone explain how the increase or decrease in the amount of plants in the galaxy influences the probability of an intelligent designer?
Last time I read an article on the amount of planets in the goldilocks zone mapped it was in the billions so if that number went up how does that effect the ID claim?
originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: ColeYounger
I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?
Maybe for these religious people who foam at the mouth, and get offended at the very mention of no-god. Are they that weak and insecure?