Yes, it's indeed interestingly... wrong. That's exactly the bullshit I was referring to.
First, the statistics are completely idiotic - the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science". SETI has scanned close to 0% of the sky, and has been operational for approximately 0% of the lifetime of the universe. Furthermore, most light from far-away parts of the universe hasn't even arrived yet. Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible. Sure, there might be 10^-100 probability of physical constants permitting stars to form, but there might be 10^200 universes being created every second, so... And, there were many planets found since that could potentially harbour life.
Second, even if we somehow assume that the authors are right (i.e. that their, completely unsubstantiated, estimates of the relevant probabilities are, miraculously, quite close), we cannot assume that "intelligent design", yet alone any specific religion, are right; simply, disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment; that's quite far removed from the description of "intelligent design" as usually propagated by religious people.
>the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science".
Absolutists in the other direction frequently display a certain inability to wedge in ideas that run counter to scientific dogma. This, even to the outright dismissal of evidence to the contrary. At a certain point, this adherence to dogma becomes a religion unto itself, complete with all of its faith-based articles.
It seems that you missed the entire tone of the article, and got stuck on the numbers (and your analysis there is partially incorrect, by the way).
Did you notice the evolution in science? What was initially supposed has since evolved dramatically. Sagan had a view that was widely accepted in scientific circles. Then, the narrowness of that view became increasingly apparent until the original assumption was rendered scientifically meaninglessness. Are you saying that didn't happen? If it has, then does it have any bearing on your strict adherence to scientific evidence or absolute certainty? Or, are you saying that we now have it 100% correct?
Did you also happen to notice quotes from Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, John Lennox or any of the rest of it?
But, here's one of your comment's biggest flaws:
>Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible
No one is talking about the search for life in other universes or even the search for other universes. You're confusing the relevant terms in your equation. Let's just stick to the one universe we know. It's the premise of the article, the search, the assumptions made by Sagan, etc.
I don't really want to refute each point. The bottom line, again, is that there's been an evolution in science that continues to this day.
>disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment
Sure, but it's pretty amazing that you are so selectively willing to allow for such "extreme" possibilities, but not ones for which thousands of years of history and some evidence exists. Wasn't that you who just invoked Occam's Razor?
First, you're dubbing religious people insane. Now, you're saying we might be living in an artificial experiment. You're willing to allow that there's some sort of "intelligent design", as long as it's not the one "propagated by religious people".
All totaled, it just seems that you have a bone to pick with religion, as much as a simple adherence to "science".
But, I'll leave you with this quote from Sagan, which sums up what I've been trying to express with far more eloquence:
"To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."
First, the statistics are completely idiotic - the typical stunts marginally smart people pull when they try to manipulate the public using "science". SETI has scanned close to 0% of the sky, and has been operational for approximately 0% of the lifetime of the universe. Furthermore, most light from far-away parts of the universe hasn't even arrived yet. Also, extrapolating "probabilities" from N=1 is obviously impossible. Sure, there might be 10^-100 probability of physical constants permitting stars to form, but there might be 10^200 universes being created every second, so... And, there were many planets found since that could potentially harbour life.
Second, even if we somehow assume that the authors are right (i.e. that their, completely unsubstantiated, estimates of the relevant probabilities are, miraculously, quite close), we cannot assume that "intelligent design", yet alone any specific religion, are right; simply, disproving A does not prove B if there are other options available. For example, we might be living inside a Matrix or another artificial experiment; that's quite far removed from the description of "intelligent design" as usually propagated by religious people.