dtporter Science is not supposed to answer questions of "why?" Only the "what?" questions are considered acceptable grist for the scientific mill. Unfortunately for traditional science, the "why?" questions are some of the most important and intriguing. For example, Einstein was continually puzzled by the fact that humans can understand what are biologically irrelevant phenomena (e.g., black holes). Indeed, what survival value is linked to our ability to investigate and understand aspects of the universe beyond this earth? We can easily propagate this planet without knowing Earth is part of a solar system which in turn is part of a galaxy system. This ability has no evolutionary value, yet our ability to know persists and even grows. So, what's up?Richards and Gonzalez have an intriguing answer to a troubling question: Why is Earth so well-suited for complex life and observation of the universe by its inhabitants? More critically, is there evidence, scientific evidence, to suggest design-a purpose that explains more than the sheer permutations and probabilities which allow for complex life-form existence?Guillermo Gonzalez (Ph.D., Washington), Astrobiologist, and Jay W. Richards, Philosopher (Ph.D., Princeton), seem to be obsessed with finding some sort of reason behind irregular phenomena. They seem particularly obsessed with challenging some fundamental principles of scientific investigation. Not all obsessions are bad, and when coupled with premise challenges, they can be mind-boggling. Such is the case with The Privileged Planet.Copernicus discovered the Earth was not the center of the solar system, and certainly not the center of the universe. But the medicine we ingested intellectually to avoid the toxicity of anthrocentrism has had a negative side effect-we have assumed, unnecessarily according to Richards and Gonzalez, that the Earth is not special. Sagan called it a little blue dot in a vast cosmic arena. Sagan is clearly right quantitatively, but qualitatively? Perhaps there is more to the Earth than its size.Qualitatively, why is the Earth so well configured for life? Theists, of course, have a ready answer. But, science normally leans on the huge ledge of time which affords google-sized permutation possibilities. "Why?" is not a particularly popular nor socially-appropriate question to be asked by a scientist. Some fear losing their credibility by asking "Why?"Richards & Gonzalez are fearless. Challenging traditional premises, they re-examine the empirical record in biology, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics. A rather startling conclusion accumulatively emerges: rather than being a pale blue dot insignificantly placed in a galaxy, evidence supports a quite different conclusion-the Earth is uniquely positioned to support complex life, and-here's the real news-uniquely positioned to observe the universe. Einstein was puzzled that humans have such ability; it is a challenge for biologists as well. Just what is the survival value of being able to understand, for example, a black hole?Scientists who assumed a deity are not unusual; Newton, Pascal, Copernicus, and Einstein are just a few of the more famous. But, today is different. Deity is neither a premise nor a possibility in traditional science. And to be fair, Richards and Gonzalez are not arguing for deity, per se, but arguing that the empirical evidence of life, chemistry, astrobiology, and especially physics accumulatively suggest purpose, not random permutation.Amidst the evidence supporting a purposeful design is the rather startling precision of the relationship between the moon's mass/distance from the Earth and mass/distance from the sun. One scholar extols, "were it not for the moon, we would not be." In fact, Gonzalez discovered that the size of the moon is precisely what allows solar eclipses to be scientifically rich experiments. If it were slightly smaller, or larger, we could not observe solar flares (and starlight bending from the sun's mass, a major confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity). Furthermore, it is the moon's precise mass that stabilizes the Earth's axis to maintain a temperate climate whereby complex life forms can exist.Richards and Gonzalez continued to reveal a variety of accumulated evidence which supports two pillars of thought: (1) the Earth is particularly well-suited for complex life forms, and (2) the Earth is particularly well-suited for observation. Specifically, Gonzalez argues that both sides of the equation must be considered; i.e., not only the number of possibilities, but also the number of factors that must be precisely "in tune" to support complex life-forms and an observational platform. Small changes in just one factor (e.g., gravity) remove all possibilities of complex life. And there are more than a score of factors which must be precisely tuned not only to a given level, but also tuned systemically with all the other factors. It turns out the probability for a well-suited environment for observing complex life-forms trumps the "other side of the equation."The debate will continue, and it should. After all, there are few questions more important than "purpose." To be driven by purpose is one definition of obsession, and Richards and Gonzalez are obsessed. Perhaps we too need to be obsessed-as scholars we have some work to do. Surely, there is more to our purpose than mere propagation.D. Thomas Porter, Ph.D., School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida (Retired))

splumer Pretty cinematography and impressive-looking interviews mask what is, at its heart, typical intelligent design propaganda. The main premise, that the fact that conditions on Earth allowed life to form is too unlikely to have occurred by chance, is simply wrong. Life evolved on Earth BECAUSE the conditions were good. Organic molecule abound in the universe, but its only here that they were able to gain a foothold and eventually evolve into humans. Specious reasoning is not a good basis for a documentary that purports to be scientific. Next, let's examine the two men primarily responsible for the film's content. Jay Richards does indeed hold a PhD, but it's in theology. He has no science degree. It's in Wikipedia. Look him up. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State for his support of intelligent design. Not exactly neutral scientific opinions, are they? Other comments are cherry-picked to support the ID hypothesis, and some scientific information is presented in a misleading fashion. For example, the film states that the portion of the electro magnetic spectrum we call "visible light" is only a tiny portion of the overall spectrum, and its miraculously situated where we can see it! No mention is made of animals that can see outside the human visible light spectrum, nor is it said that if humans were able to see, say, in the ultraviolet, that we would call THAT "visible light" and the current visible spectrum something else. And again, visible light is useful to life on Earth BECAUSE we evolved to use it. Organisms that use other types of waves wouldn't last long on Earth. I could go on, but there's only so much room to refute all the deliberate misinformation in this film.Pleas, do yourself a favor and watch a REAL documentary on the origins of life. Real scientists don't need to make excuses or misinform. The truth is out there.

pt100 *** This comment may contain spoilers ***I won't go into all the details of why this simplistic movie is just another example of the Intelligent Design (ID) camp's attempt to mislead the relatively uneducated and those who may be desperate to believe in a personal god/creator. I'll just point readers to a couple of objective information sources and then mention only one or two general fallacies in the film that are typical of the ID movement's pseudo-scientific approach.First, the biggest and most overarching flaw is the simplistic reliance on the anthropic principle: that there must be a purposeful reason why we are here to observe and contemplate the universe. Basically, anthropic reasoning says that we are here because we're special (in the eyes of God?). Whereas a more scientific approach would say that we're special because we're here. (A subtle but crucial distinction.) I.e., we could just as easily not have been here; in which case this would all be moot.For more on the anthropic principle, just Google it and read a few of the more scientific descriptions. Secondly, the ID proponents take scraps of "evidence" very selectively and then just ignore the huge amount of counter evidence that goes against their view.A couple of examples of this are their assumption that all life forms in the universe must be based on the particular combination of conditions found on earth (atmospheric composition, temperature, amount of water, carbon-based life, etc.); and the misleading commentary on how the size and distance of the moon from the earth and sun are just right to allow a total eclipse of the sun. Re: the latter point, the ID folks seem either to ignore or not even be aware of the simple fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth's gravitational field. It used to be much closer to earth; and it will eventually escape the earth's gravitation altogether, leaving us with no moon whatsoever. That future situation may be extremely disruptive to life on earth (no tides, on which many organisms depend, as the movie itself points out), if not totally disastrous. Ironically, survival under those future circumstances will probably depend on successful evolution of species due to natural selection pressure. So much for "intelligent" design.There's a lot more I could say. But maybe this is enough to get some of the more critical, objective proponents at least to view the movie again with a more skeptical eye next time. If you really want to take a cold, hard look at the ID arguments vs. real science when it comes to evolution specifically, I suggest you read the excellent, objective book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer, who is famous for carefully and logically debunking lots of pseudo-science. Another excellent book is "Why Intelligent Design Fails" which also carefully dissects and debunks the ID arguments.And for more discussion about the "specialness" of our universe and how the laws of physics are tuned precisely to allow us to exist and observe it, read, in addition to the anthropic principle material, a book called "Before the Beginning" by Martin Rees, which discusses the concept of the "multiverse".Here is the key difference between the ID crowd and real science: while the latter try to remain objective and to derive and test theories based on evidence from the natural world, the former start with a religious belief about what they want to be true, and then use selective evidence and false logic to try to "prove" it. Unfortunately, those who do not have a strong education in science, logic, etc., can fall easy prey to such nonsense.

brian_griffith This documentary was excellent! It never ceases to amaze me how wonderfully complex and finely tuned our universe is ... and how unlikely it is that it would provide the conditions necessary in which complex life could arise. To those who reduce this documentary, as well as the Intelligent Design movement, down to nothing more than a pseudo science ... please provide your arguments AGAINST the observations/claims in this documentary ... rather than merely cutting it down in your language. The various scientists and scholars that were interviewed throughout the course of this documentary (Guillermo Gonzalez - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Jay W. Richards - Ph.D., Dennis Danielson - Ph.D., Seth Shostak - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Charles A. Beichman - Ph.D.'s in Physics and Astronomy, Bijan Nemati - Ph.D. in Physics, Kevin Grazier - Ph.D. in Physics, Don Brownlee - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Paul Davies - Ph.D. in Physics, Robin Collins - Ph.D. in Philosophy) gave scientific facts, as well as their interpretation of those scientific facts, to produce their conclusions. Please leave a detailed rebuttal to their conclusions or your empty criticisms of their conclusions will be reduced to nothing more than anger and contempt towards the possibility that the Intelligent Design movement might be right after all. Thank you.