Posted on 06/01/2005 1:54:19 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
The work of an Iowa State University assistant professor has made its way into the Smithsonian Institute.
A 60-minute documentary titled "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe" will premiere at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History on June 23. The film is based on a book co-authored by Guillermo Gonzalez, an ISU assistant professor of astronomy and physics. "I am very pleased that it is going to be shown at such an important locale," Gonzalez said.
Gonzalez's theory in "The Privileged Planet" creates a link between the design for life and scientific discovery. The rare qualities that make a planet habitable also provide the best overall conditions for observing the universe around us, he explains.
For example, the transparency of the atmosphere that allows people to see distant stars and galaxies is a result of the high oxygen content of the atmosphere, a condition that also is needed for complex life.
The book also discusses how our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery, Gonzalez said, noting the way perfect eclipses can be seen from earth. "It's not just a coincidence that there is life on earth and that we can observe eclipses," Gonzalez says. "Those two are actually intimately linked."
The book was co-authored by Jay Richards, the vice president and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank in Seattle. Within the institute, Richards works for the Center for Science and Culture, a research fellowship program that supports and promotes research regarding evidence of design and purpose in the universe.
While the theory does argue for intelligent design, it is not an argument for or against Darwin's theory of evolution. "It has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution," Richards said. "We are talking about the things that you need to produce a habitable planet, which is a prerequisite for life. It doesn't tell you anything about how life got here."
The Smithsonian's co-sponsorship of the film does not mean the museum endorses the ideas expressed in the film, according to the Web site. An event held at the Smithsonian cannot be a personal event, fund-raising event or an event of a religious or partisan political nature, according to the Smithsonian's special events policy.
Following the premiere, the documentary is planned to run on Public Broadcasting Stations across the country.
Ping
Thanks for the ping!
Wow, this is a ridiculous statement.
The fact that the Sun is about 400 times larger and about 400 times more distant than the moon is coincidence. (Notice the about's in there... so much for the "perfect" eclipses.) In fact, I'd venture to guess that humanity probably would have had an earlier understanding of the true nature of the Earth/Moon/Sun relationship had this coincidence not existed. You wouldn't have had those lesser light/greater light fallacies, or the Sun-being-eaten-by-the-moon myths.
But I think you did him one better.
Oh, do tell me how. Please, wise one...
Lot's of "science" was driven by the "need" to predict eclipses.
bttt
"Did you see the beautiful sun set last night" asked the Astronomy Professor.
Who is perpetuating silliness here.
Absolutely. And that "need" still would have existed if the moon appeared to be, say, 3/4 the size of the sun. But where such an obvious disparity in size existed, superstition is less likely and scientific study more likely, in my opinion.
Who is perpetuating silliness here.
If I were a smart-ass I would say you are, given the fact that the word "sunset" is simply a common word (and a single word, at that) and not a scientific statement of the relationship between the earth and the sun.
Things get quiet around totality, not just when it gets a little darker. Partial eclipses are not particularly spectacular, heavy overcast is just about as effective.
The sun goeth down and the sun riseth.
True. But in terms of prediction, it would be almost as likely that you would want to predict a 3/4 eclipse, and thereby develop the tools of prediction. But it could go the other way, too. If the sun appeared to be only 3/4 the size of the moon, then you would have longer total eclipses, and as much, if not more "need" to predict them than you would have now.
I am not saying that we would have lost something if we did not have the near 1/1 ratio. Clearly we would have. The ability to see the corona, for example, or study the sun in the way that a 1/1 ratio and the potential for annular eclipses provides, would have been a huge loss. But I'm just saying there would have been benefits, too.
I am willing to say that it is fantastic that this coincidence exists. But it is farcical to say that this coincidence and our being here are "intimately linked." Not even old-time astrologers went that far.
I don't think you'd like the calculations for a small sun.
No, I didn't mean it as biblical commentary. I was referring to the fact that some people believe that both the sun and the moon generate light, when, of course, moonlight is nothing more than reflected sunlight.
Sorry, I'm not following you.
Planets that can support life are not likely to be common.
Good thing there are a LOT of planets.
All of you realize that the odds of your 'parent' sperm fertilizing an ova are astronomical too. Does that mean it's impossible for us to be hear by random chance? God had to pick the winning swimmer or it would be impossible for each of us to be hear.
Excellent! Thanks for the link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.