Gonzales’ book has unfortunately been rendered somewhat obsolete by recent discoveries of large numbers of exoplanets, many of which are sufficiently earth-like to render any argument based on the uniqueness of Earth moot.
First of all, to make the discussion more accessible to amateurs like myself who don’t understand at a glance words like “exoplanet,” the word simply means planets outside the Solar System. rossum, it seems incredible to me that after reading
Privileged Planet you think the overwhelming body of evidence contained therein can be rendered obsolete by a mere increase in the number of discovered planets. Did you seriously think that the author’s didn’t foresee the discovery of more planets? It also seems incredible that you missed the entire argument of the book - it was much more nuanced than a traditional design argument which infers design merely from complexity and rarity of life. As I summarized in the OP, it inferred design from the unnecessary pattern of correlation between Earth’s unique suitability for life and scientific learning.
In reading your article on planet candidates, I learned about planets that are like Earth in this or that respect. This planet is about the same size of Earth. That planet is in the stellar habitable zone, like Earth is. Show me one planet that is anywhere near as ideal as Earth for life, in other words, that actually has more than a couple of these features, especially the perfect moon relationship. Truth be told, I thought the authors demonstrated quite conclusively that life would require at least all the features listed in their book, and probably many more yet undiscovered particular to Earth, including: partially liquid iron core, magnetic field, plate tectonics, proximity to sun, size of planet, a moon of just the right size, a moon with just the right proximity, the right star (I saw all kinds of planets from your article that were around red dwarfs and other seriously problematic stars), sister planets to provide bombardment shielding, the right metallicity, the right star age, the right planet age, the right planet makeup of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, and the list goes on and on and on.
You tell the forum there is a growing list of planet candidates, and concerning some of those planets the scientists are still debating whether or not it is a gas giant. These planets are so far away, it’s hard to even clearly see their existence, let alone get near determining whether they have a fraction of these life-essential qualities. It is incredible to me that you disregard the book’s argument out of hand with such weak evidence.
Not only feared but also thanked and loved: