The Discovery Institute Fails at Exoplanets

| 70 Comments

KOI-701.03, an as yet unconfirmed, Earth-like world probably in the habitable zone of its Sun. KOI-703.03 visualized in Celestia (click to embiggen).

On this Thursday at 18:00 UT NASA will hold a press conference on a recent discovery by the Kepler, the exoplanet discovery telescope. I don’t know what to expect, on the basis of past performance they will probably announce a tidally locked super-Earth in the habitable zone of a Red Dwarf as if we have found a second Earth (or maybe they will confirm KOI-701.03 really is in the habitable zone of a reasonably sun like star).

Still, despite coming hard on the heels of the 50 new exoplanets found by HARPS, the existing bonanza of Kepler worlds and discovering the atmospheric composition of some exoplanets, one can hardly suppress a thrill at the prospect of learning something new about the plethora of extrasolar worlds we have found.

One wonders how William Dembski feels after proclaiming in 1992:

“Dawkins, to explain life apart from a designer, not only gives himself all the time Darwin ever wanted, but also helps himself to all the conceivable planets there might be in the observable universe (note that these are planets he must posit, since no planets outside our solar system have been observed, nor is there currently any compelling theory of planetary formation which guarantees that the observable universe is populated with planets)”

Three years later the first exoplanet was confirmed, and the current count stands at 677.

Exoplanets visualized at “Data is Beautiful” for Wired.

It’s not the first time a pundit has been wrong, after all the philosopher Auguste Comte claimed that we would never know the composition of the stars, yet 25 years later the spectroscope revealed the elements they were made of (and in 1814 Frauenhoffer had seen the spectral lines that would reveal the stars secrets when chemistry improved).

But it’s not the fact the Dembski was wrong (or Paul Nelson, who quoted him approvingly in 1993), but the way that they were wrong. The claim is that “Darwinists” posited a plethora of worlds to fulfil the needs of evolutionary theory, without any strong evidence. Yet Dembski and company couldn’t be more wrong.

The 55 Cnc system (excluding the outermost planet), 55 Cnc e is marked by the red cross near the sun.

Note that Dembski says “nor is there currently any compelling theory of planetary formation which guarantees that the observable universe is populated with planets”. You might think this hedges his bets a bit, with the qualifications “compelling” and “guarantees”, but it doesn’t

By the 60’s the dominant theory of planetary formation was a variant of the nebular hypothesis, which with further modification became dominant in the 1970’s.

It was abundantly obvious even in the 60’s that the implication of this hypothesis was that planet formation would not be a rare event (for example the RAND corporation study “Habitable Planets for Man” published in 1964 used this model as a basis for estimating the number of stars with planets).

Then there was stellar rotation. In the solar system, most of the angular momentum is in the planets, and the sun has most of the mass but just a fraction of the angular moment momentum because during planet formation the momentum of the spinning protostellar disk is transferred to the planets. Most sun-like stars have angular momentum like the Sun’s suggesting that the majority of these systems had planets.

Dust disk and exoplanet around Beta Pictoris, image source, Wiki Commons..

Observations in the early 80’s of dusty disks around young T-Tauri stars and then dust disks around stars like Beta Pictoris were in line with the nebula hypothesis and strengthened the case that planets were common.

George Wetherill’s classic paper “The Formation and Habitability of Extra-Solar Planets” did not come out until 1996, but his work in 1988, 19989 and 1991 on planet formation made scientists confident that solar system equivalents were not rare in the galaxy.

Certainly, when Dawkins published “the Blind Watchmaker” in 1986, there was a compelling theory of planetary formation, along with astromomical observations which guaranteed that there would be planets around other suns. When Dembski wrote his words in 1992, astronomers were busy designing the very instruments that would reap a harvest of extrasolar planets just a few years later.

Dembski was trying to claim that “Darwinists” make things up to bolster their arguments. Yet Dembski was doing what he criticised “Darwinists” for. If he had taken a few moments to read the astronomical literature, or even asked an astronomer, he could not have made his statement.

Based on the Kepler data of 2010, we can say that around 50% of Sun-like stars have planets, and there may be at least one million Earth-like planets in habitable zones in the Milky-Way alone. And that is probably an underestimate. Some good resources are the Exoplanet encyclopaedia, Exoplanet.org (with the exoplanet data plotter) and the Habitable Zone as well as my posts on exoplanets.

UPDATE: NASA’s big announcement was a planet orbiting a binary star, a bit like Tatooine, if Tatooine was a frigid gas giant. It could have a habitable Moon though.

Evolution News and Views posted a response to this article, my response is here.

70 Comments

I would be more optimistic if we found lots of Jupiter like planets in Jupiter like orbits.

Well, we’d have to wait around 33 years to confirm a Jupiter size object in a Jupiter like orbit (usually 3 orbits are needed for confirmation), still the new data have a lot more small objects in more solar-system like orbits, hot Jupiters no longer dominate (try playing with the plotter for an idea of the size distributions)

The expected frequency of other planets in the universe with something we would recognize as life is given by -

A) (Number of planets in the universe we can observe sufficiently closely to see if what we can recognize as life is there)

Multiplied by

B) (Probability that life has ever existed on such a planet, up to time of human observation)

Multiplied by

c) (Probability that if life ever was present, life, or definitive remnants of life, are still present at time of human observation).

Currently, we have crude but improving estimates for “A)” but no estimates at all for “B)” or “C)”.

If “A” is large, then the expected frequency is large, unless B*C is very small, but since we have no estimates for “B” or “C”, that is not very meaningful.

The only way we can gain good estimates for “B” or “C” is by either finding life enough times to have a fair sample that we can generalize from, or by coming up with some kind of model of abiogenesis that is so good that it allows some kind of reasonable estimate of one or both of these parameters.

If we do find recognizable life and survive doing so, that will falsify many claims made by DI types, but they will simply deny having made those claims, and argue that the new life is “more evidence for design” (with the implied agenda - “and evidence for design is proof that the United States must be transformed into a brutal authoritarian theocracy with a harsh economic system that produces third world conditions”).

Correction.

A) (Number of planets in the universe we can observe sufficiently closely to see if what we can recognize as life is there)

Multiplied by

B) (Probability that life has ever existed on such a planet, up to time of human observation)

Multiplied by

c) (Probability that if life ever was present, life, or definitive remnants of life, are still present at time of human observation).

Actually, if we had good numbers for parameters “B” and “C”, we wouldn’t have to observe the planets to come up with an estimate of the frequency of observable life in the universe, just count them and multiply that number by B and C.

However, the most obvious way to come up with numbers for “B” and “C” is by observing a sample of planets and seeing how many have life. If enough life is observed to form a sufficient sample, we could then conclude that B*C = (number of planets observed)/(number we saw evidence of life on).

The indirect method of coming up with an estimate of B*C via a highly precise model of abiogenesis is also unlikely to occur any time soon.

Aargh.

However, the most obvious way to come up with numbers for “B” and “C” is by observing a sample of planets and seeing how many have life. If enough life is observed to form a sufficient sample, we could then conclude that B*C = (number of planets observed)/(number we saw evidence of life on)

Of course that should be “(number of planets with life)/(total number observed for life)”, not the other way around.

The prevalence of big planets in close orbits seems, at face value, to rule out earth like planets in suitable orbits. I’m no astronomer, but current theories suggest that you need a Jupiter to sweep and stabilize a system for earth like planets.

It’s not like we really know for sure.

But it’s wonderful to be learning stuff like this. I’ve always been a science futurist, at least since the late 50s. Two really big things I never, never anticipated happening in my lifetime: Genetic engineering, and discovery of planets outside our solar system.

Ian Musgrave said:

Well, we’d have to wait around 33 years to confirm a Jupiter size object in a Jupiter like orbit (usually 3 orbits are needed for confirmation), still the new data have a lot more small objects in more solar-system like orbits, hot Jupiters no longer dominate (try playing with the plotter for an idea of the size distributions)

You think maybe that’s why we see so many giant worlds in tiny, fast orbits around stars? Because our methods of observation are biased in favor of such things? What about all the exoplanets as small as Earth, or as long orbiting as Jupiter, that we cannot confirm, or even detect yet?

Ah yes, the Habitable Zone. A concept introduced by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for (pseudo) Science and (faux) Culture.

Apparently still pursuing academic freedom at Grove City College, although not so much in the spotlight anymore.

One wonders how William Dembski feels after proclaiming in 1992:

“Dawkins, to explain life apart from a designer, not only gives himself all the time Darwin ever wanted, but also helps himself to all the conceivable planets there might be in the observable universe (note that these are planets he must posit, since no planets outside our solar system have been observed, nor is there currently any compelling theory of planetary formation which guarantees that the observable universe is populated with planets)”

Probably he feels as angry as ever that he isn’t acknowledged as the Isaac Newton of information theory by the infidels.

I’m wondering if any of them ever feels anything but anger and disappointment that their genius isn’t recognized by, well, the educated segment of the population that jeers at them. They are, after all, the ones that they care about, not the slackjawed dolts that really are impressed by their intellect.

Glen Davidson

I would note, too, that the press conference likely is being staged in part to keep Kepler funded. Star variability has been found to be greater than expected, which makes finding planets in longer orbits more difficult during the time period thus far allotted to Kepler’s operation. Missions have often been able to expect to be extended so long as the instruments are working well and the work is deemed reasonably important, but in this time of tight budgets it’s not so certain that Kepler will continue.

If they managed to get an especially tantalizing find, this will make the needed mission extension more probable.

Glen Davidson

George Wetherill’s classic paper “The Formation and Habitability of Extra-Solar Planets” did not come out until 1996, but his work in 1988, 19989 and 1991 on planet formation made scientists confident that solar system equivalents were not rare in the galaxy.

When is his paper on time machines coming out, or hasn’t it been translated from the Sumerian yet?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]B7LXvm8qaRoo said:

Ah yes, the Habitable Zone. A concept introduced by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for (pseudo) Science and (faux) Culture.

Apparently still pursuing academic freedom at Grove City College, although not so much in the spotlight anymore.

I’m pretty sure that what ID types claim is that Gonzalez introduced the “Galactic Habitable Zone”, not the solar system habitable zone, which has been around for decades. I don’t know the current scientific status of the “Galactic Habitable Zone” – it actually explicitly depends on naturalistic theories of planetary formation to make any sense at all. And if e.g. non-sun-like stars (like red dwarfs) produce habitable planets, then that may have changed the ballgame.

This is all so cool.

Whenever Dembski and any other ID/creationists make comments like that one, it is blatantly obvious they are just blowing smoke and trying to sound like they are the “most interesting men in the world.”

But physics and chemistry are the simplest of the scientific disciplines; and math is the basic tool used by these disciplines. If ID/creationists constantly mangle these basics whenever they make their pompous proclamations about what can or cannot be in geology, astrophysics and biology, then there is no hope that they can understand anything that happens in these fields that deal with systems of greater complexity.

And then we have these pretentious pseudo-philosophers like Stephen Meyer inventing “philosophical” rationalizations for why ID/creationism should have equal or higher scientific status than science itself.

These people have constructed pseudo-history, pseudo-philosophy, and pseudo-science as a complete package that all locks together with their sectarian pseudo-religion; and they are now pushing it through pseudo-universities and attempting to enforce it all with the socio/political actions of extreme, well-funded Right Wing organizations.

It’s easy to laugh at this stuff when one understands just how ludicrous it all is. But the fact that so many people are still fooled by this crap makes in not so funny.

Is there a working definition of “pseudo-philosophy” ? Pseudo-mathematics is all bound up in “ain’t it cool” and claims of numbers having extra-mathematical significance and disregard of even primitive concepts of proof. Pseudo-science is about aping the language and appearance of science without a fundamental intellectual honesty about bringing hypotheses into confrontation with experiment. Both pseudo-mathematics and pseudo-science attempt to usurp the authority of reliable mathematics and science for an individual’s claims.

But, as I am acquainted only with David Berlinski’s ridiculous attempt to be portrayed with steepled fingers and reclining in a couch while making pretentious claims about what I do and do not know, I don’t understand the difference between pseudo-philosophy and the benefits of philosophy.

Aristotle’s reputation as a philosopher and his rejection of empiricism cause me to wonder where the dividing line is, since I have a hard time dividing intellectual honesty from empiricism.

Looks like its Baghdad Bob time for the discoveroids again. There are no exoplanets! I meant no rocky exoplanets! I meant no rocky exoplanets in the habitable zone! I meant no rocky exoplanets in the habitable zone with detectable atmospheres! I meant no rocky planets in the habitable zone with detectable atmospheres and detectable signs of life…

richardpenner said: But, as I am acquainted only with David Berlinski’s ridiculous attempt to be portrayed with steepled fingers and reclining in a couch while making pretentious claims about what I do and do not know, I don’t understand the difference between pseudo-philosophy and the benefits of philosophy.

I think creationists do the same thing with philosophy as they do the natural sciences. I.e., attempt to ape/fake/impersonate its structures and activities so as to lend false academic credibility to their theology.

They don’t do philosophy or science, so much as they do ‘philosophy theater’ and ‘science theater.’

Mike Elzinga said: These people have constructed pseudo-history, pseudo-philosophy, and pseudo-science as a complete package that all locks together with their sectarian pseudo-religion; and they are now pushing it through pseudo-universities and attempting to enforce it all with the socio/political actions of extreme, well-funded Right Wing organizations.

Don’t forget to mention pseudo-history. The Willie Dembski of pseudo-history is the pseudo-historian David Barton, the subject of Liars For Jesus, Chris Rodda’s book about the religious right’s alternate version of American history - see http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

I think Gonzalez is not the originator of that term. It was a concept frequently used when discussing life on earth and its position between Venus and Mars, kinda like the three bears, we were in the just right zone. He doesn’t deserve creadit for using this term, sorry.

richardpenner said:

Is there a working definition of “pseudo-philosophy” ?

Theology?

dalehusband said:

Ian Musgrave said:

Well, we’d have to wait around 33 years to confirm a Jupiter size object in a Jupiter like orbit (usually 3 orbits are needed for confirmation), still the new data have a lot more small objects in more solar-system like orbits, hot Jupiters no longer dominate (try playing with the plotter for an idea of the size distributions)

You think maybe that’s why we see so many giant worlds in tiny, fast orbits around stars? Because our methods of observation are biased in favor of such things? What about all the exoplanets as small as Earth, or as long orbiting as Jupiter, that we cannot confirm, or even detect yet?

Yes, that is definitely why. We are biased towards finding hot Jupiters because they are very easy to find. The newer surverys (Kepler, HARP, MOST) with longer observing arcs are finding more and more low mass planets in more solar system like steups (again, see the plotter link for a better idea of the distribution of planet sizes now). We now have a huge harvest of Neptune-like worlds that we could never see before. Even so, finding earth-sized worlds at eath orbital distances reamins a challenge, and we really need newer scopes for this.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/[…]B7LXvm8qaRoo said:

Ah yes, the Habitable Zone. A concept introduced by astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for (pseudo) Science and (faux) Culture.

The Habitable Zone is a concept dating back to at least the 60’s (again, see the RAND paper on this), and was more completely formulated by Kasting in the 80’s. While Gonzalez did make the concept of “‘Galactic Habitable Zone” more widely known, even this was foreshadowed by th book “Rare Earth”, which suggested that life was common in the galaxy, but planets hosting complext metazoans were relatively rare.

What I don’t understand is why anyone would have thought that there WOULDN’T be planets around some of these stars. It stands to reason that if our star has orbiting planets, there would be other planets out there.

jlesow said:

The prevalence of big planets in close orbits seems, at face value, to rule out earth like planets in suitable orbits. I’m no astronomer, but current theories suggest that you need a Jupiter to sweep and stabilize a system for earth like planets.

No, not really. It’s been hypothesized that we need jovians in a Jupiter-like orbit to stop frequent mass-extinction impacts, but terrestrail plantes in terrestrial orbits should form just fine.

Super-Jupiters are no-longer the prevalent planet type, as we rack up more exoplanets (and exoplanetary solar systems), and it is possible for Earth-like worlds to form bejhind a hot Jupiter.

As we get more data, and surveys with newer telescopes are completed, we will have a better idea.

jandmkidder said:

What I don’t understand is why anyone would have thought that there WOULDN’T be planets around some of these stars. It stands to reason that if our star has orbiting planets, there would be other planets out there.

This depends on how planets form. If the “stellar close encounter” theory was right, and planets formed from material drawn out after near-collisions between stars, planets would be very rare. But in this case, when the dominant theory had been established (with modifications of increasing sophistication) for decades, Dembski and co would just have to be plain ignorant to not know of it.

Gotta say I agree with Karen S., this is like 27 kinds of awesome. :-)

jandmkidder said:

What I don’t understand is why anyone would have thought that there WOULDN’T be planets around some of these stars. It stands to reason that if our star has orbiting planets, there would be other planets out there.

He’s probably being ornery. We don’t need no stinkin planets. Get offa my lawn stinkin planets. *grumble* Planets didn’t come from no damn monkeys. Lol. He’s just being his professional denialist and science stopping self as usual.

It is now obvious that Earth is the only planet in the universe that is capable of accepting light and solar energy from the sun. The sun is aimed directly at us only. It bypasses Venus, Mercury, Uranus and all those other planets closer to the sun–they receive nothing. They deserve nothing. These planets are useless to us. They are only in the way. We must use our nuclear weaponry and laser beams to destroy them. I’m sick of the universe getting in my way all the time.

–Zoogz Rift (The Liquid Moamo)

richardpenner said: But, as I am acquainted only with David Berlinski’s ridiculous attempt to be portrayed with steepled fingers and reclining in a couch while making pretentious claims about what I do and do not know, I don’t understand the difference between pseudo-philosophy and the benefits of philosophy.

eric said: I think creationists do the same thing with philosophy as they do the natural sciences. I.e., attempt to ape/fake/impersonate its structures and activities so as to lend false academic credibility to their theology.

They don’t do philosophy or science, so much as they do ‘philosophy theater’ and ‘science theater.’

Ah! So the critical element is acting. Thank you.

fnxtr said:

It is now obvious that Earth is the only planet in the universe that is capable of accepting light and solar energy from the sun. The sun is aimed directly at us only. It bypasses Venus, Mercury, Uranus and all those other planets closer to the sun–they receive nothing. They deserve nothing. These planets are useless to us. They are only in the way. We must use our nuclear weaponry and laser beams to destroy them. I’m sick of the universe getting in my way all the time.

–Zoogz Rift (The Liquid Moamo)

Is he a Discovery Institute fellow too?

Ian Musgrave said:

Yes, that is definitely why. We are biased towards finding hot Jupiters because they are very easy to find. - snip - finding earth-sized worlds at earth orbital distances reamins a challenge, and we really need newer scopes for this.

The important point - at least for the proximate discussion - is that we find these planets at all.

I’ve never quite understood why Christian theology insists that there are no worlds other than earth - after all, my copy of the Bible doesn’t say “And the lord sayeth ‘I have no interests other than this small planet’”.

Nonetheless, they do insist we are unique and alone. End of story.

And yet, as soon as our ability to detect other worlds develops, we immediately find things.

All the way back to Galileo spotting the moons of Jupiter with his first telescope.

As soon as we could seek, yea did we findeth.

They were there all the time.

Once again fundamentalist cosmology is demonstrated to be wrong the moment it becomes possible to actually run the test.

Also, FL, tell us how Intelligent Design and Young Creationism help scientists find Earth-like planets?

And just for the record, tell us again why we should bother to trust the bobbleheads at the Discovery Institute say about science to begin with?

FL said:

Based on the Kepler data of 2010, we can say that around 50% of Sun-like stars have planets, and there may be at least one million Earth-like planets in habitable zones in the Milky-Way alone

And now, it’s time for the interstellar reality check. Consider well:

Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets

Evolution News and Views, September 16, 2011

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/0[…]u050871.html

FL

Hey, that’s sweet, EN and V noticed me. The completely failed to understand what I wrote though. And Gonzales kept on about the Super Jupiters, which, in the light of the Kepler and HARPS data, are tuning out to be not as common as the first data indicated.

Also, with the sensitivity issues of even Kepler, we are STILL biased towards seen big planets in close orbits, more Solar system like systems are still hard to find, but heck, they keep turning up.

FL wouldn’t know methodological bias from a hole in the ground. The propagandists of the DI might, but they make their living by lying to the ignorant, usually by omission - just like this. Because they’re very good liars, they succeed wonderfully - right up to the moment when the facts rudely intrude. And then it all comes crashing down.

Oh, and Ian, they didn’t “fail to understand” what you wrote. They deliberately mangled, misrepresented and mutilated it, and then they lied about what they’d done.

ID/creationist theory of magnets:

Place two bar magnets randomly on a dinner plate. What is the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end?

ID/creationist answer:

There are four ends to consider. So there are two ways one magnet can have its end lined up with the end of the other magnet, and since the other magnet also has two ends, there appears to be 4 possibilities at first glance. But it is not one chance in four because each magnet can have random orientations. So divide the circle of orientations into 360 x 10500 parts for each magnet.

Then there are (360 x 10500)2 possibilities for just orientation alone.

But there are also essentially infinite numbers of positions of the magnets on the plate; only a few of which would have the circles centered on and having the diameters of the magnets touching each other.

So the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end is obviously much smaller than 10-500 therefore it is impossible that the magnets will be found end-to-end.

Mike Elzinga said:

ID/creationist theory of magnets:

Place two bar magnets randomly on a dinner plate. What is the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end?

So the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end is obviously much smaller than 10-500 therefore it is impossible that the magnets will be found end-to-end.

I find your calculations on probabilities most convincing.

Let me make a note on the fine-tuning of the universe for human life. It is well known that the electromagnetic interaction is vastly stronger than the gravitational interaction [1]. The electrostatic force between two protons outweighs the gravitational force by something like a factor of 1036. Both of these forces depend on the distance exactly the same way. Now, if electric charges were distributed randomly, it would be very unlikely, or even impossible, to have a stable and benign planetary system that we can enjoy. Only intelligent design can end up in a charge distribution, where virtually all matter is electrically neutral, as negative and positive charges are arranged close to each other.

I do not even attempt to calculate the probability of this kind of arrangement taking place purely by change. Intelligent Design must be the answer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundam[…]_interaction

Mike Elzinga said:

ID/creationist theory of magnets:

Place two bar magnets randomly on a dinner plate. What is the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end?

ID/creationist answer:

There are four ends to consider. So there are two ways one magnet can have its end lined up with the end of the other magnet, and since the other magnet also has two ends, there appears to be 4 possibilities at first glance. But it is not one chance in four because each magnet can have random orientations. So divide the circle of orientations into 360 x 10500 parts for each magnet.

Then there are (360 x 10500)2 possibilities for just orientation alone.

But there are also essentially infinite numbers of positions of the magnets on the plate; only a few of which would have the circles centered on and having the diameters of the magnets touching each other.

So the probability that the magnets will be found end-to-end is obviously much smaller than 10-500 therefore it is impossible that the magnets will be found end-to-end.

My heavens! I witnessed multiple miracles when I was a kid, and didn’t even realize it!

The Coulombist orthodoxy insists that some invisible “field” causes spontaneous alignment of the magnets, but magnets are subject to the same laws of probability as everything else; clearly, the probabilistic interpretation of the second law means that the magnets being end to end is thermodynamically impossible. Only an intelligent agent could overcome the entropic barrier.

Why have I heard nothing of Intelligent Placement before?

Ian Musgrave said:

Hey, that’s sweet, EN and V noticed me. The completely failed to understand what I wrote though. And Gonzales kept on about the Super Jupiters, which, in the light of the Kepler and HARPS data, are tuning out to be not as common as the first data indicated.

I get the distinct impression that their epic reading comprehension failure is an ability both instinctual and deliberately cultivated.

apokryltaros said:

FL said:

Based on the Kepler data of 2010, we can say that around 50% of Sun-like stars have planets, and there may be at least one million Earth-like planets in habitable zones in the Milky-Way alone

And now, it’s time for the interstellar reality check. Consider well:

Among Darwin Advocates, Premature Celebration over Abundance of Habitable Planets

Evolution News and Views, September 16, 2011

useless spam link redacted

FL

Where in the Bible does it say that life is forbidden to appear outside of the Earth?

The real “Bible” for FL and his buddies is “whatever ‘arguments against evolution’ EN and V, AIG, WorldNetDaily, etc are pushing”.

Obviously, neither the theory of evolution nor the actual Bible say anything that denies the probability of life on other planets.

Should be “possibility” not “probability”. Late morning caffeine deficiency.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ian Musgrave published on September 14, 2011 9:53 AM.

Peter H. A. Sneath (1923 - 2011) was the previous entry in this blog.

Evolution News and Views Fails at Exoplanets Too is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter