Talk:Baháʼí views on science/Archive 1

Other planets as Other worlds of God

Suggesting that it might imply some metaphysical "world" is a good idea, but putting the quote in context makes it more clear:

"Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import. The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 163)

I'm taking out the mention of possible other interpretations of the verse Cunado19 10:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it really true that science provides no insights on (the non-metaphysical interpretation of) this statement? I think most scientists will be pretty confident in telling you that there is, for instance, no life on Mercury. Ken Arromdee 15:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Pretty confident maybe, but not absolutely confident....As Mercury always keeps the same face towards the Sun, who knows what may live in Mercury's twilight zone...and that's just life as we know it. In the context of what science has learned in the past fifty years about life on Earth, what scientists say about life on other planets is mere speculation. Meanwhile I have to collect on a 1972 bet from a fellow student who claimed that there are no planets circling other stars ;-) --Occamy 17:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Mercury doesn't keep the same face towards the sun. Scientists figured that out *40 years ago*. (Look at the Mercury article on Wikipedia).

And what scientists say about life on Mercury is not "mere speculation". It's possible they could be wrong, but only in the sense that it's possible anything at all said by scientists could be wrong. According to science, there's no life on Mercury. This is different from your friend's beliefs about planets; while he might not have thought there were planets around other stars, you wouldn't have had trouble finding scientists who thought they do exist, even in 1972.

It just isn't correct to say that science has no insights about this. Ken Arromdee 05:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course you are absolutely right about Mercury's rotation. I am shocked that I missed that fact over the years :( humblepie, humblepie.... Anyway, life near the poles, life underground...who knows? Science certainly has insights about what not to look for, such as whales or eagles on Mercury. But concerning forms of life that science has not learned about, or lifeforms about which we are barely familiar, science offers no, or barely any, insights about life on Mercury, or Jupiter or Neptune. In the future, yes, but not yet. --Occamy 18:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You're always welcome to edit. And BTW it's the moon that always has one side towards the earth, not a planet that has one side toward the sun.

And from what I remember from science class, people thought nothing could survive at the bottom of the ocean, until they found a diverse ecosystem thriving in the boiling hot water near volcanic activity. Until about a year ago people were still debating about water on Mars, which was proven within the last year or two (by a Baha'i that I grew up with). And within the last year I remember reading an article where someone found another planet past Pluto. Nobody knew what to do, or whether to even call it a planet, cause then all the text books would need re-printing.

I don't feel like spending an hour referencing those, so if you're dying for sources just tell me. The point is, at this point there is not enough information, and it's mostly best-guess speculation with the little amount of information available. Cuñado - Talk 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All those examples are bad.

-- People did not think nothing could survive at the bottom of the ocean. And undersea vents have been known for a long time.

-- No liquid water has been found on Mars. You are confusing it either with a recently discovered ice "lake" (ice was already known to exist on Mars, and the "lake" was a media exaggeration anyway--see the Mars article on Wikipedia) or with some recently discovered evidence that water existed in the past (scientists did not have much *evidence* for water on Mars in the past, but they didn't think it was impossible either)

-- Scientists did not claim it was impossible for there to be another planet past Pluto. They didn't *know* of such a planet, and they might have claimed it was impossible for there to be one in a certain place, at a certain distance, or with a certain brightness, but that's not the same thing.

The fundamental mistake you're making is that "scientists say they haven't found any" isn't the same thing as "scientists say it's impossible". Even "some scientists say it's impossible" isn't the same as "pretty much every scientist in the world agrees that it's impossible".

Life on Mercury is something scientists will call impossible. True, that doesn't rule out the possibility of life that's nothing like what we know of as life, but if you're going to go that route, science doesn't say that *anything* is impossible.

Would you object to a sentence like "Science claims that life on Mercury is not possible, to the extent which science can make such claims at all"? Ken Arromdee 01:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well personally I think the sentence in the article is worded poorly. You can change it to anything you want, as long as you don't go the opposite route and say that "science has disproved Baha'u'llah."

I have no interest in debating these further, but needless to say they are debatable. Cuñado - Talk 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited this and also removed the Drake Equation comment:

Until recently, this did not accord well with scientific understanding. Indeed the Drake_equation was widely quoted in the 1970s and 1980s to explain why few stars in the galaxy have planets and yet fewer could be life-bearing.

This is inaccurate for several reasons:

• In Drake's original formulation, the figure for stars having planets was 0.5, which isn't that small.
• Regardless of the figure for stars having planets, the statement is incorrect, because the Drake Equation doesn't explain why few stars have planets. Rather, it uses the number of stars with planets in order to calculate something else.
• The statement that it explains why few planets could be life-bearing is wrong for a similar reason. The equation makes no conclusions about how many planets are life-bearing; like the ratio of stars with planets, this is data which is used to calculate something else.
• The equation is designed to calculate how many advanced civilizations we might contact, which is not the same as how many planets have life. Ken Arromdee 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Saturn's moon

If anyone's still interested in this, I just found this article, where it talks about the probe that just discovered a hot spot on the pole of one of Saturn's moons. It seemed to throw everyone offguard cause planets never have hot spots on the poles, always on the equator. And not only that, but the probe flew by the planet 3 times before it noticed. The phenomenon is unexplainable for now, and it's just another interesting point to add to the discussion above. Cuñado - Talk 06:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Science doesn't claim to know everything, but there's a difference between not knowing everything and not knowing anything. Because scientists believed that such a hotspot didn't exist and now found one doesn't mean that all scientific beliefs are equally prone to have such mistakes. Some are better supported than others.

Scientists' model of Enceladus didn't include hotspots, which is a fancy way of saying "taking our best guess so far, we have no reason to expect them". It's quite different from believing that such things are impossible, despite what the press sometimes likes to report, and is not comparable to life on Mercury.

Claiming it's "unexplainable" is a little misleading too. Whihle scientists don't have *an* explanation, they know of some possible ones; and not having an explanation for something isn't the same thing as making a positive statement of its impossibility. Life on Mercury isn't impossible because nobody can explain why it would be there, but rather because people *can* explain why it would *not*. Ken Arromdee 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So life on Mercury is impossible? you just went through saying how nothing can be proven completely, and then said that life is impossible on Mercury? The point I was going for is that the estimations of scientists are not facts. A long time ago people would have said that life couldn't exist at the bottom of the ocean, and that the equator of a planet is always the hotter than the poles, because with the evidence at the time, those would be logical conclusions. And both of those are wrong. So if you're saying life on Mercury is impossible, you don't have evidence to support that, and until you walk around Mercury with a life-o-meter, it's better to just say "the existence or non-existence of life on Mercury can't be proven." Which was what the article said, which is what caused this argument in the first place. Cuñado - Talk 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a highly misleading description.

First of all, it's true that science can't prove anything absolutely. However, if that's the standard you're going to use when writing this article, you shouldn't even *have* an article, because since science can't prove anything it is meaningless to say that your religion is or isn't in harmony with it--because *everything* is in harmony with it.

On the other hand, if you're writing an article where "in harmony with science" and "not in harmony with science" means something, you have to use some standard other than absolute proof. Instead, you can claim that something is in harmony with science if it matches things that science is very certain about (yet not necessarily 100% certain).

If so, science is pretty darn certain that there's no life on Mercury.

Moreover, your addition to the article is wrong: -- your link doesn't say that scientists expect life on Venus. It says that *some* scientists think life *is possible* on Venus. You've phrased it to say that the belief is a lot more popular and a lot more certain than it really is.

-- Since Baha'u'llah's statement talks about every planet, mentioning planets where life might exist isn't relevant. If there isn't life on Mercury, then a statement that every planet has life is false. If there is life on Venus, that doesn't make the statement true again. You can disprove a statement about "every planet" with a counterexample, but you can't prove it with an example.

-- The fact that no scientists have recognized planets outside the solar system before 1995 is not, as you seem to think, an example of scientists changing their mind about planets--because before 1995, they didn't say there *aren't* planets, they said that they *hadn't found* planets yet. Scientists before 1995 certainly did not believe that extrasolar planets are impossible.

-- By the way, there's no such thing as "astrologists". Ken Arromdee 02:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing this, because the edit contains too many inaccuracies:

• "Until recently the idea of life bearing planets was not popular." Not true. You have two references, one which shows that no extrasolar planets were known, and one which says that scientists are searching for life now. Neither of these says that the idea was once unpopular.
• "current astrologists estimate that half of the stars in our galaxy have planets". Aside from the error about "astrologists", the implication that scientists have changed their minds is not true. As you can see from the Drake Equation article, the original Drake Equation uses a figure of half the stars in the galaxy having planets, and that's in 1961.
• As I pointed out above, the article says that *some* scientists think it *possible* that Venus has life, but you've taken it to mean that *most* scientists *expect* Venus to have life, which is a misquote.
• Also as I pointed out above, just because scientists think that some planets may have life doesn't mean they believe that *every* planet has life. If they think there's life on Venus and Mars, but not on Mercury, that's still not every planet.

I've edited this back but kept your reference. Ken Arromdee 14:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to partially revert. At this point us arguing will do nothing. If you want to say life on Mercury is impossible, just quote someone famous saying that and put a reference. As far as I'm concerned, it's inaccurate to say that science has disproved Baha'u'llah, which is what you've been trying to insert in the article. Cuñado - Talk 06:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys. We're missing the point here, and putting words in Bahá'u'lláh's mouth. The first definition of "Creature" as defined in the 1955 Oxford Universal Dictionary, which is sitting on my desk here, is "Anything created: a created being animate or inanimate," and only the third difinition is "A human being." (Selecting this particular version of the OED is on-point here as Shoghi Effendi was famously picky with his English translation.)

Asserting that Bahá'u'lláh meant that each–and–every star has planets bearing animate life - carbon-based, silicon-based, or whatever — mis–reads this quote. Bahá'ís recognize the mineral, vegetable, animal and human kingdoms — they're all part of creation. Debating whether or not "life" exists on Mecury, or Saturn's moons, is irrelevant.

Bahá'u'lláh's point, if one reads the whole paragraph, is that self-appointed keepers of knowledge throughout history have asserted that nothing exists beyond what they themselves can point to, or conceive. And they've been so wrong from the moment they open their mouths. There are worlds, and literally: planets, beyond their conception — and God has left His handiwork there too.

The fact that there are minerals on Mercury and Venus, but no possible carbon-based life there, doesn't disprove the case. Minerals are creatures of God as defined, even if inanimate.

Although the mineral, vegetable, animal and man all have actual being, yet the mineral has no knowledge of the vegetable. It cannot apprehend it. It cannot imagine nor understand it.

It is the same with the vegetable. Any progress it may make, however highly it may become developed, it will never apprehend the animal, nor understand it. It is, so to speak, without news of it. It has no ears, no sight, no understanding. 23

It is the same with the animal. However much it may progress in its own kingdom, however refined its feelings may become, it will have no real notion of the world of man or of his special intellectual faculties.

The animal cannot understand the roundness of the earth, nor its motion in space, nor the central position of the sun, nor can it imagine such a thing as the all-pervading ether.

Although the mineral, vegetable, animal and man himself are actual beings, the difference between their kingdoms prevents members of the lower degree from comprehending the essence and nature of those of the superior degree. This being so, how can the temporal and phenomenal comprehend the Lord of Hosts?

'Abdu'l-Bahá, 'Abdu'l-Bahá in London, p. 22

And yes - carbon-based life on Mercury is bloody impossible. That doesn't need attribution.

MARussellPESE 04:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Asserting that Bahá'u'lláh meant that each–and–every star has planets bearing animate life - carbon-based, silicon-based, or whatever — mis–reads this quote.

If the literal reading of the quote is not what he meant, and inanimate minerals count as creatures, then there shouldn't be any problem with pointing out that the literal reading of the quote is inconsistent with science, right? It would not be claiming that the *Baha'i faith* is inconsistent with science, it would just be claiming that *certain literal interpretations of* the Baha'i faith are inconsistent with science. (I'm aware you're not the original poster.)

Bahá'u'lláh's point, if one reads the whole paragraph, is that self-appointed keepers of knowledge throughout history have asserted that nothing exists beyond what they themselves can point to, or conceive. And they've been so wrong from the moment they open their mouths.

That sounds like a common, but not very accurate, caricature of science. Is it your position that this is intended to refer to scientists? If so, would it be appropriate to include a paragraph explaining that scientists consider that description to be inaccurate, and why they do? Ken Arromdee 14:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ken, so glad you posted. I'd agree with the assertion that "certain literal interpretations of the Bahá'í faith are inconsistent with science." They are. Science is necessarily quite precise in its language. Religion isn't necessarily so; nor do I think that it has to be or can. Religion's focus on metaphysics, by definition, can take it into areas where precision in thinking is difficult much less language.

Literally interpreting metaphysics leads to a host of problems, which brings us to your next point. Bahá'u'lláh isn't referring to scientists here. To me its clear that he's referring to the flat-earth, geo-centrist, 10,000 year old earther theologians. "Learned" here refers to clerics. Which class of people through the ages have more jealously guarded their right to interpret reality for the rest of the masses - scientists or theologians? The British Royal Academy never threatened anyone with flogging, immolation at the stake, or even damnation of their eternal soul, that I'm aware of.

Bahá'u'lláh is not caricaturing science and scientists at all. Far from it. He's caricaturing theologians playing scientist from the pulpit or madrassa.

I'm thinking of a couple of paragraphs something like this:

Taken on its face, this statement is contradicted directly by current understanding in planetary science.

Bahá'ís would point out that this statement could be interpreted broadly within the context of the Bahá'í writings. "Creature" is variously defined as "Anything created whether animate or inanimate." [I must attribute this with a more current source.] 'Abdu'l-Bahá stresses [Perhaps insert the full quote here?] that even the mineral kingdom is gifted by God with existence, and hence termed a "creature" of God. The nebular theory of star formation would suggest that each star developes orbiting bodies, planets, as it forms. Taken in these contexts the idea that each star has orbiting bodies, or planets, and that each contains creatures, as Bahá'ís view them, is not necessariy incorrect on its face.

As with the subject of Evolution, Bahá'u'lláh, is making religious statments, not scientific ones.

Does that start to get us off the dime?

MARussellPESE 16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's closer. I wouldn't object to your formulation, but I still see a problem: If 'creatures' includes inanimate things, then saying that every planet has creatures is meaningless, since it is true by definition. It's like saying that every planet has atoms (since atoms would count as creatures). It seems hard to read the statement as meaningful without taking 'creatures' to mean living things.

Also, while you interpret 'creatures' to mean even inanimate objects, it's obvious that not every Baha'i agrees with you. Are there a substantial number of Baha'is who interpret it to mean life?

He's caricaturing theologians...

Okay, then never mind. I asked because this kind of statement *is* commonly used by religious people to attack science, particularly with respect to evolution. It also sounds like Cunado was attacking science in this way. For instance, he seemed to be saying that scientists arrogantly denied that extrasolar planets exist. Ken Arromdee 21:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And we're still talking...

Well it wasn't too long ago that people believed the sun rotated around the earth. I guess my point is, science is always changing based on new observations, so to pin down a scientific conclusion and compare it to religious theology at any given time isn't all that important to me. Where you would say "Science has disproved Baha'u'llah." I would say "Baha'u'llah is a little ahead of science." And of course on wikipedia neither of those kinds of ideas should be expressed in the article.

If the article is about how well your religion goes with science, then pointing out that current science disagrees with your religion is very relevant.

About interpreting creatures as minerals... I don't think so, but I could see why someone might bring it up. I would say that it just dillutes the meaning a little.

I think if you can find some reference to show that life is impossible on Mercury, it would be helpful. So go at it. Cuñado - Talk 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Asking for a reference for life being impossible on Mercury is unreasonable. First, it's so well known that it's hard to find a reference--it's like finding a reference for the sky being blue. Second, science generally doesn't claim things are absolutely impossible, so any statement you'll find will probably be that life is impossible to a high degree of certainty, not absolutely impossible--yet it would be a mistake to take that as "science says it's possible, so my literal reading of my scriptures does match science after all". Ken Arromdee 15:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, here: Life on Mercury. Mercury has no appreciable atmosphere (~10E-15 bar compared to Earth's 1.014E-3 bar), and with a high of 700 K (427°C) water would have been blasted off the planet billions of years ago.

No carbon-based cellular functions known, much less life, exist without liquid water. For that, I cite my Mother, who holds an MS in molecular biology, Father, who holds an MS in biology, and lifetime of personal conversations.

Ken, There isn't a Bahá'í Office of Right-Thinking and Pedagogy. And I doubt most Bahá'ís have thought deeply on this passage. There are other matters of more pressing concern, so I don't know of a way to document what "most" Bahá'ís think.

But this discussion is illustrative. If one takes overly literal readings of individual passages, uninformed of the metaphysical and/or scientific implications, one can find oneself down any number of dark alleys. Asserting that Mercury, or Saturnian moons, must contain life is but one.

The word "creature" does include inanimate created things, as cited. It appears that the usage has evolved (What else is new in English?) and that currently that particular definition is more obscure. But that doesn't change the meaning at the time this passage was translated.

The Harmony of Science and Religion does not state, or imply, that each could prove or disprove the other. This doesn't make sense as one treats the spiritual, the other treats the physical, and both (should) undergo change as human understanding expands. But Bahá'u'lláh does expect Bahá'ís to understand both science and religion, and to use both to inform their understanding of each.

On its scientific face the statment is, as you correctly observe, meaningless. It would actually seem to push being a begging the question fallacy. Planets do have atoms. Whoopie! But the Bahá'í writings clearly state that God loves the entire creation. This is amply illustrated in the above excerpt from 'Abdu'l-Bahá in London. The Judeo-Christian idea that the world was created to serve Man, or that we are entitled to dominate it, is not supported at all.

The defining feature of a "creature" that they are created, not whether or not it's animate, as they can be inanimate by definition. Even atoms and photons are "creatures" and have received the bounty of God's love, and deserve our consideration as such. God loves both sides of E=mc², as well as the equation itself, I think.

Bahá'u'lláh is making a religious statement that there's so much more to the Creation than clerics or religious judges ever imagined; and that even the atoms of planets of distant stars are loved by God. To me this is very profound. It's as profound as contemplating the Hubble_Deep_Field images. (3,000 galaxies imaged arcoss a mere 144 arc seconds of sky — mind-numbing.)

I think I'll drop the proposed thoughts outlined above into the article after reflecting on how to address your points more clearly. Thank you for your input.

MARussellPESE 20:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ken, There isn't a Bahá'í Office of Right-Thinking and Pedagogy. And I doubt most Bahá'ís have thought deeply on this passage. There are other matters of more pressing concern, so I don't know of a way to document what "most" Bahá'ís think.

I can understand not thinking about the passage, but Cunado obviously *has* thought enough about the passage that he believes he has an answer, and that the answer is that it should be interpreted literally. He doesn't say "I know nothing about this subject--I haven't even thought about it". What I'm really asking is if many Baha'is are like him. Are the Baha'i equivalents of creationists common, or rare? Ken Arromdee 05:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

science generally doesn't claim things are absolutely impossible, so any statement you'll find will probably be that life is impossible to a high degree of certainty, not absolutely impossible--yet it would be a mistake to take that as "science says it's possible, so my literal reading of my scriptures does match science after all".

OK then, you just said the point I was trying to make, so I don't even know why we seem to be arguing. And now there's a reference for lifeless Mercury from University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Cuñado - Talk 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, the sky is not blue, it is transparent. [1]. Cuñado - Talk 19:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ken, "Planet" is defined, in the same dictionary I used above, as "A heavenly body distinguished from the fixed stars by having and apparent motion of its own among them." To me that would include asteroids, comets, etc. Clearly the nebular theory suggests that a star is very highly likely to develop at least some of these, if not full-blown terrestrial or jovian planets. Taken with "creature" defined there, the interpretation presented above seems to fit neatly — at least to me.

We believe in independent investigation of truth. This allows us the freedom to explore the meanings of things for ourselves, but requires us to assume the responsibility to be informed. Bahá'ís often come to quite varied conclusions, sometimes spectacularly so. When investigating for ourselves, we need to do more than just think about it. We need to inform ourselves of the science as well as the religion, or else we end up reaching badly to justify ourselves. Exactly what Bahá'u'lláh was getting at with the clerics.

Cuñado, adding reference that ice exists on Mercury does not advance the article's clarity, or support a literal interpretation.

• Your own reference states that "It would appear that Mercury could not support [liquid] water in any form." Your second is equally clear that any water to be found would be ice.

• Cellular function requires liquid water, not ice. Cellular functions are fundamental to carbon-based life. While there are species that can survive rather extended lengths of time frozen, none known have evolved in an environment devoid of liquid water. This fact is basic to biochemistry, and is easily researched.

• You've not addressed the almost certain absence of life on any of the jovian planets. For the statement to be true on its face, and the definition of "creature" be "living thing" as you seem to insist upon, living things would be required here as well.

The problem with interpreting this passage literally, and ignoring the various meanings of the words, is that if living beings are not found on a single planet, or there is a single star in the heavens without planets, then Bahá'u'lláh is flat wrong. If He's wrong about something as basic as this, how can He possibly be considered authoritative on anything?

Or it could be that this passage has broader meaning than its literal reading. It wouldn't be the first time. There's a reason Shoghi Effendi kept a dictionary beside his typewriter.

Much of this whole article reaches awkwardly. I'd appreciate working out differences of opinion here on the Discussion page where, I thought, we were supposed to.

MARussellPESE 20:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the ice reference because your reference to Mercury being lifeless mentioned that there is no water or atmosphere. It was a poor reference. I was serious about the need for references. Nobody should ever claim "science says this..." It should only be "this person said this, and here's why you should believe him." Cuñado - Talk 06:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Some Baha'i references

I was reviewing whatever references I could find to see if I was mis-interpreting the subject. Considering the paragraph involving the mentioned quote, and the other references, I don't see how creatures could be interpreted as minerals, and although planet could be vague (asteroids, moons, gas giants), I don't see how it could be interpreted as something non-physical. See below. Cuñado - Talk 06:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import. The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 162-163)

1581. Creatures are to be Found on Every Planet

"Regarding the passage on p. 163 of the 'Gleanings'; the creatures which Bahá'u'lláh states to be found in every planet cannot be considered to be necessarily similar or different from human beings on this earth. Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 9, 1937)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 478)

"As you rightly state, Baha'u'll'ah affirms that every fixed star has its planets, and every planet its own creatures. The House of Justice states however, that it has not discovered anything in the Bahá'í Writings which would indicate the degree of progress such creatures may have attained. Obviously, as creatures of earth have managed to construct space probes and send them into outer space, it can be believed that creatures on other planets may have succeeded in doing likewise."

(From a letter dated 11 January 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Aug 06, Sabeans, UFOs, Alien Abduction and Genetic Engineering)

My remark about science not absolutely proving things doesn't belong. Cunado basically said "science doesn't say that life on Mercury is absolutely impossible, so life on Mercury is in harmony with science". My point is that since science doesn't say *anything* is absolutely impossible, using that standard makes the whole concept of "in harmony with science" meaningless.

If you want to say that something is in harmony with science, you can't compare it against the things that science absolutely proved (since science doesn't do absolute proof). You have to compare it against the things science is pretty certain about. Life on Mercury fails this test. Ken Arromdee 14:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Now we're in agreement. I reverted your deletion and added a few things. It disregarded everything I mentioned and has no references for anything. Please re-read the entire section in the article. I tried to include all the points we mentioned, and notice that I changed the wording of the 3 numbered "issues" to include some points.

I left a paragraph for each issue: life on every planet, and planets with every sun. Cuñado - Talk 16:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Much of the information you include is not relevant to the issue. Exactly what is the point of mentioning ice on Mercury, since even you have to admit that ice doesn't equate to life? And what is the point of mentioning life on Mars and Venus, since while a statement that refers to life on all planets can be disproven by a single counterexample (such as Mercury), it can't be proven by an example (such as Venus)? For that matter, what is the point of saying that planets have been recently found outside the solar system, since scientists still do not believe that every star has planets? Ken Arromdee 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Some Bahá'í references" do not advance the argument

The section still doesn't flow and talks around the quoted rather than getting to the heart of it. It leaves the impression that there's no way to clearly understand the statement.

None of the new quotes require the narrow definitions of "planet" and "creature" being used, and do not advance the argument.

Please see the following definitions of "Planet" and "Creature" that were current at the time this passage was translated:

• Planet: [1913 Webster's] & [1828 Webster's].

• Creature: [1913 Webster's] & [1828 Webster's]. Please note the quote attributed to Francis Bacon that "God's first creature was light."

The structure of the thesis that "there must be life on every planet, we just haven't found it yet" suffers from the fallacy of composition. (i.e. We observe living creatures here on Earth. Bahá'u'lláh says that creatures exist everywhere (an appeal to authority), therefore living creatures exist everywhere.) This reasoning is backwards. It begins with the false premise of fixed and narrow definitions and only then seeks evidence to back it up. In the absence of supporting evidence, or in the face of inconvenient contrary evidence, it reaches for "as yet undiscovered" support. Sorry, but I see a fallacy wrapped in a fallacy hidden in a fallacy. MARussellPESE 17:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of reverting for the second time today, I'm going to ask for some more people to contribute to the discussion. Cuñado - Talk 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

... Cunado's asked me to take a look at this debate. I've got to be honest I've avoided most of these commentaries on Baha'i topics, because I find them so hard to be encyclopaedic (and completely different to my style of writing). Having said that I do appreciate them.

As to this issue? I've got to say that we need to make sure this doesn't become a POV split with other wiki pages (such as Extraterrestrial life maybe?) because the content has gone too broad (specific examples - the Mars/ice one). Basically, I think we should really get down to the meat of "what do Baha'is believe on science?" - where they agree, disagree etc. As for the fallacy wrapped in a fallacy - well thats not a very helpful. One can often hear it argued that the suffering of innocence is evidence that there is no God. Perhaps, but it doesn't discourage belief in God.

Anyway as for wording... I prefer Ken Arromdee's as a starting point and move towards Cunado's (as against the other way). It's more succinct and to the point. Having said that I wouldn't count my opinion as authoritive, so if you can find more third person's views that would be better. -- Tomhab 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

New point of view

I have also been asked to give comment to this discussion. To me, I really don't see much of a difference between the different arguments. Yes Baha'u'llah said that there will be planets around every star, and there will be life on every planet. There is of course a very very very low probability that the statement will be found true.

The spirit of the statement I think is more important than the statement itself (other planets and life will be found). Also, I think it is sometimes important not to take religious passages literally. Baha'is are thought that Jesus arriving on the clouds should not be interpretted literally (etc).

But back to what the Wikipedia statement should say. I also think that Ken's statement is closer to what I would choose just based on the style that doesn't try to find excuses for everything. I have written a version of the section incorporating both Cunao's and Ken's write-ups, and I've used the words probability and unlikely which is I think in line with the science. I have an engineering background and nothing is deterministic any more (your computers have a probability of giving 3+3==5 etc), so using probability is a good way of aligning what science has to say on the subject (it is very very very unlikely that life will be found on every planet, but it can't say no until it has searched every planet). The other part, which I have not incorporated yet, but I think should be included is the spirit of the statment rather than the literal reading of the statement. So here is my version: -- Jeff3000 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Life On Other Planets

Bahá'u'lláh in an aside stated:

"Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 163)

Some detailed issues arising from the statement include:

(1) What is a "planet"? Is the moon a planet? Is he referring only to terrestrial planets, meteors, or also gas giants?

(2) By "creatures", is he referring to intelligent life, microorganisms, or minerals?

(3) Does "every" really mean "every," or perhaps something closer to "very many"?

Taken on its face, this statement is contradicted by current understanding in planetary science. If one planet is found without life, or one star found without a planet, then the statement would be false.

Scientists have long believed in the possibility of other planets outside the solar system. Since 1995 there have been a number of planets identified around under star systems, but astroners believe that only up to have the stars in our Galaxy may have planets around them [2]. Thus while Bahá'u'lláh's statement from the 19th centery that other planets will be found has been found to be true, it is nearly an impossibility that the complete statement will be found true since there is a very low probability that planets will be found around every star system.

Many scientists also believe that there may be life on other planets [3]. However, while scientists think planets such as Mars and possibly even Venus may bear life, they do not consider every planet to be such a possibility. An issue arises within our solar system with the planet Mercury or Pluto, which are believed to be lifeless; some scientists believe that without an atmosphere or water life as we know it cannot exist on such planets [4]. Ongoing research, however, has found evidence of polar ice caps on Mercury which, while not equating to life, increases the possibility that life may have exist on Mercury. Regardless, Bahá'u'lláh's statement saying that life will be found on every planet is very unlikely given the harsh realities of space.

On the subject of life on other planets, Shoghi Effendi wrote:

"Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 9, 1937)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 478)

And the Universal House of Justice wrote the following:

"As you rightly state, Baha'u'll'ah affirms that every fixed star has its planets, and every planet its own creatures. The House of Justice states however, that it has not discovered anything in the Bahá'í Writings which would indicate the degree of progress such creatures may have attained. Obviously, as creatures of earth have managed to construct space probes and send them into outer space, it can be believed that creatures on other planets may have succeeded in doing likewise."

(From a letter dated 11 January 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Aug 06, Sabeans, UFOs, Alien Abduction and Genetic Engineering)

splitting hairs?

As a student of linguistics I'm quite partial to Mike Russell's insistance of being specific about the words used and their definitions at the time they were used. So I think that a section about this should include the statement about creatures simply being things that were created, and I like that quote about the first creature being light.

Jeff, I like that write-up, but I think it could use a couple of changes, like that last one, to take into account some of the other things that were said on this topic earlier.

On another note, I think the whole page is missing love and cohesion. It's so quick to go to disagreements that the section on ether doesn't even have the quote it's dissagreeing about.

This article is an example of why it's necessary for science and religion to be in harmony. Science takes you down countless rabbit holes in order to discern the truth in all things, while religion reminds you of the bigger picture about what the science is for. For example: what is the use of studying the age and composition of a fossilized turnip found in southern Montana when there are people famined in Niger? And what exactly is the better use of the energy released when an atom is split?

So who's more correct? Science? Religion? They are not the same things. They govern different spheres. Each is essential, science to discover truth of matters and protect people from extremely fundamentalist religious thought and from superstition; and religion to protect people from the misuse of scientific knowledge and discoveries, to direct them to scientific endeavors that will profit mankind and to remind them of the light at the top of the rabbit hole when they're scraping the bottom of it... and it's granite. ;-)

Heres something Bahá'u'lláh said about this:

Out of the wastes of nothingness, with the clay of My command I made thee to appear, and have ordained for thy training every atom in existence and the essence of all created things.

-Hidden Words

So that's my personal interpretation of `Abdu'l-Bahá's quote at the begining of the article, and according to it I would personally like to see more religion guiding how (and indeed- if) these arguments are carried out. That said, I'm glad these things are being discussed. It's nice to watch things become more perfect. LambaJan 01:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Revised 18:41, 25 October 2005 (CST)

Generalizations and Hyperbolic Style

Ok, I've also been asked to poke around here and I've read through the whole thread. Jamming on the "splitting hairs" comment above, I really feel that we're missing something, unrelated to the science. Baha'u'llah says "every fixed star" in the aforementioned quote. So I have a few questions that might render irrelevant some of the discussion and discord, depending on what is meant.

Every

Firstly, what is "every". Is it "any and all, in all cases?" Or is it "every" as in "everyone knows". In other places, Baha'u'llah says things like "every man of insight would testify..." when clearly there are some "men of insight" that might not know. It's a hyperbolic style of declaration, and it is a generalization. It's not meant to be taken literally. It is, to put it another way, emphasis. It's allowed. It's actually quite common. There's a passage that reads "when the victory arriveth, every man will declare himself a believer." I have never taken it to mean that there would be no one among us humans who would choose to remain outside the Faith, even if a substantial Majority of people were to suddenly declare themselves. Every, in this case, it seems to me, means "most", or "statistically speaking, every", or "on average, every," and is stated hyperbolically to merely provide emphasis.

If Baha'u'llah was socking-it to the "Learned" of his day, as was hypothesized earlier, then such hyperbole is consistent with other statments He makes in that kind of context. Also, it's a common persian (and heck, english) literary device. Just read Shoghi Effendi. He uses this all the time. Or read Secrets of Divine Civilization by Abd'ul-Baha. Lots of hyperbole. Very common. Sometimes irritating or disturbing to post-enlightenment Europeans (and their posterity), since it's discouraged in our intellectual culture. Yet, in context, it's unremarkable.

Fixed

Secondly, there's the question of "fixed star." What on earth is a fixed star? As far as I can tell, there's no such thing, since all stars are moving relative to galactic center, and all galaxies are moving relative to each other. So a literal reading works out logically to be

Every fixed star hath its planets

There are no fixed stars

Non-existant-stars have their planets

Science speaks of stars in motion

Apples-to-oranges

So if he's being absolutely, and prescriptively literal, then we have no problem, since the words are meaningless. Zero meaning, zero contradiction. Clearly he's not being absolute AND literal, or he wouldn't have bothered to waste air (paper) on the statement. Therefore, we can take a relaxed view and assume that (short of explicit interpretive guidance from Abd'ul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi to the contrary) that he was making a point, and meant to emphasize the fact that there was/is life on other planets.

A "fixed star" means any star except the sun, and the term dates back to when the stars were not known to be suns. They are called fixed stars because they move so slowly that as far as the ancients knew they didn't move at all. Ken Arromdee 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

and thus we have to use the meaning of the terminology from Baha'u'llah's time, and thus creature could very well mean the mineral kingdom as MARusselPESE has already added to the article. -- Jeff3000 13:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations

It seems that we are left with the following interpretations about Baha'u'llah's statement:

1. He's correct, literally and absolutely, and science is full of crap.
2. He's correct, but generally and hyperbolically, and he doesn't literally mean any-every-and-all, and science has shown some indications of life on other planets, so there's no contradiction.
3. He's wrong and science has disproven His Revelation.
4. He's correct logically, but meaningless because there are no fixed stars, and so He's led us on a wild goose chase.
5. The definitions of Creature and Planet are not identical, so it's apples-to-oranges.
6. People have way too much time on their hands and this discussion is off the charts.

My vote is with #2, A dash of #5, and a really strong serving of #6. #4 I'll leave out entirely, since it's not consistent with his personality as seen in His writings (in my view). #'s 1 and 3 I leave for fundamentalists of either religious or scientific leanings. Honestly, this is almost worse than listening to people debate intelligent design. The whole thing is a non-starter. Like Abd'ul-Baha and Ether. For pity's sake, let it go folks.

-- Christian Edward Gruber

---

Note also that I did edit a bit, to move the bits about controversy into the overall section on scientific statements by the founders, since the bit about Ether seemed a bit awkward. This discussion should probably be archived - it's getting quite long. -- Christian Edward Gruber 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that saying that "every" doesn't mean "every" is a good save. Sure, "every" is hyperbole and doesn't mean every single one. But at least it means "with only a few exceptions". If scientists believe that half the stars don't have planets, that's a *lot* of exceptions. If 19 out of 20 stars have planets, you might say "every" star has planets even though that's not literally true. But if only half the stars have planets, that's far too many exceptions for it to be true even as hyperbole.

Likewise, scientists expect a lot of planets to be like Mercury or Pluto. It's not as if scientists expect most planets to have life and there's only supposed to be an occasional exception here and there. We're not even close to "every". Ken Arromdee 05:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Christian on the #2 above, and partly with #1. I think Ken is about as irrational as I am by saying that the current estimates are absolutely conclusive. Obviously as we explore space more we will find amazing things (like ocean floor life, polar hot spots, and a planet in our solar system that we just never noticed before). I also think Baha'u'llah was speaking to a community that had not experienced a scientific revolution, and he was not speaking in absolutes, the way a scientist would, so the "every doesn't mean every" argument sounds reasonable.

And I definitely agree that this has gone on too long. Could someone be bold and try to make the page presentable and somewhat agreeable to everyone?? Cuñado - Talk 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Figurative Interpretation Added

After perusing this discussion and the article, I'm reinserting the discussion on the language of the quote that Ken had added, 10:04, 24 October 2005, but Cuñado removed on 12:50, 24 October 2005. I have expanded the references and edited it for presentation.

This formulation has support here on the discussion page. (Please see Ken's discussion and LambJan's entry above.) I see no opposition, except perhaps Cuñado's possible preferred literal interpretation. As this presentation is more on-point than the discussion of current planetary science, or the quotes from Shoghi Effendi or the House of Justice, I'm inserting it ahead of these.

I also have a small POV problem with Christian's point 4. "Is the use of an overstated and absolute assertion simply a common persian stylistic device used to emphasize?" As an Anglo-American, I do feel that Middle Easterners and South Asians seem to rely on hyperbole more than I do (Ever seen the Saudi Ambassador give an interview?), but can this be documented in a way that is authoritative, doesn't raise unnecessary issues, and doesn't sound POV? (Yes, I see the humor in an American waxing on about hyperbole — but I'm a Yankee, not a Texan. (Ever seen the Texan Ambassador Governor give an interview?))

Thanks to all for your thoughts and contributions last night (or whenever your time zone was), especially you Christian. Your expansion of the "Scientific Statements by the Founders" section was very helpful.

MARussellPESE 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Mercury discussion

Cunado, why did you take the Mercury paragraph out? It looks like you're insisting on a literal interpretation of your scriptures and taking it out because you don't want the article to say that scientists disagree with you, even though that in fact is the case. Ken Arromdee 05:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing really came of the consensus earlier, and when reviewing it again that paragraph stood out as a bad source. Instead of adding to it to continue the argument, I just took it out. Cuñado - Talk 09:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The sources are quite valid. The UCAR source may be inconvenient, but it unequivocal statement is amply supported. Please edit for style, Cuñado, if you must, but the points raised are on-point, valid, and add to the recognition of Bahá'u'lláh's quote that it, like so much of Scripture in general, is badly mangled when taken literally on it's face. MARussellPESE 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a bad reference because it's not an article, it makes a blanket absolute statement which is not becoming of good science, and claims that Mercury has no water, which is something that I disproved with references to ice on Mercury. Cuñado - Talk 18:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Finding a reference to ice on Mercury doesn't disprove the claim that there's no water on Mercury, because in the context of talking about life, "water" means "liquid water" even if they didn't use the word "liquid". Ken Arromdee 05:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The UCAR source is categorical statement from an authoritative source. Your reference that ice may likely exist in limited locations on the surface of Mercury is a very long way from suggesting, much less proving that life in fact exists there. This specific subject has already been dealt with neatly here on the talk page too. This discussion is mystifying, frankly.

Cuñado, your conduct on this topic has been heavy-handed and intolerant. You've refused to consider contrary evidence and instead insisted that the article conform to your own POV. I've not made edits without discussing them here first. Neither has Ken. You have — repeatedly. Your own opinions have not received general support here on the talk page yet you insist upon editing the article to your own satisfaction. MARussellPESE 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

My 2cents is that the quote about Mercury should remain. -- Jeff3000 22:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This article and this talk page are not for debating whether life is on Mercury, and I apologize for doing exactly that earlier. The argument for deleting the Mercury reference still stands, and instead of adding a counter-argument in the article, which would surely instigate more debate... I just deleted it.

I have no problem with other people editing and reverting my edits, if there's conflict then I discuss it here, that's how wiki works. We had a lot of discussion and still had a poorly written section which gave an individual's personal interpretation as if it were an official Baha'i opinion on the subject (the most recent deletion). So instead of calling me names try making a good article.

It seems relevant enough to quote Abdu'l Baha: Cuñado - Talk 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"The sun moves in a fixed place,"... "And each star moves in its own heaven." Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur'án appeared, all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islam, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.

It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years after Muhammad, that a famous astronomer made new observations and important discoveries by the aid of the telescope, which he had invented. The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses of the Qur'án agreed with existing facts...

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 23)

This actually makes the case to include discussion of the best available science and to take a light hand when interpreting scripture so that one does not introduce your bias. MARussellPESE 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Points of consensus

As we never actually stipulated what our consensus was (Obviously we seem to think that our own side was the "winner" as were back to cutting up each other's work again.) let me identify the following points that I think actually were consensus points and invite comment/votes.

Seven people have contributed opinions on the subject — three at length. For reference only, I've added the number of times participants have expressed support for each specific point as I read the talk to-date.

1. The whole passage should be quoted. Seems unanimous.
2. Current planetary science does not accept that life forms exist on each and every planet. Four out of six.
3. The specific UCAR reference to the absence of life on Mercury should be cited. Three out of four. (Counting Cuñado's deletion as a negative, although he made no comment on the talk page.)
4. Discussion on the broader meanings of the key words "planet" and "creature" should be included as well as their effect on the reading of the quote. Four out of five.
5. Observation that Baha'i Institutions consider the possibility of life on other planets to be open — as do most planetary scientists. One, but no one has raised objections.
6. The passage should be read literally. One out of six.

I'm afraid that we'll never close this without identifying each and every point specifically.

I'm sure that this is a shocker: I vote for one through five. MARussellPESE 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In truth, I don't think we need a reference to there being no life on Mercury at all. The reference is only there because Cunado wouldn't accept an established scientific fact as an established scientific fact and demanded a reference. All we really need is something like this: "Scientists do not, however, extend this belief to every star. Likewise, while science considers it possible that some planets have life, this is not true of every planet." There's no need for a separate paragraph or a reference at all. (That part should also be moved to the end of the "taken on its face" paragraph.)

The final quote from the Universal House of Justice doesn't belong, either, except perhaps to indicate that the House doesn't seem to be interpreting "creatures" as non-living things. Ken Arromdee 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What a consensus! Here are the points that I think should be addressed here, and I would encourage someone other than MARussellPESE to re-write the whole section, since I'm sure if either of the two of us do it the other one will be unhappy.

• Do not say in the article "Science has proven..." - it's just bad format. It's not an established fact and a good article should provide references.
• Saying "current planetary science says..... " is a good replacement for the previous with no references.
• Don't try to represent the official Baha'i viewpoint unless you have a Baha'i reference.
• The three "detailed issues" seems to be a good format, everyone likes it.
• The quotes at the end seem relevant. If not for the current argument, because the section is titled "Life on other planets"

And just for posterity, I never said that it must be interpreted literally, but shutting the door on that option seems immature. Saying that it cannot be interpreted that way without any reference other than your opinion is just as bad as saying it must be literal. Cuñado - Talk 08:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It can be interpreted that way, but it can't be interpreted that way if you want to stay consistent with science. Ken Arromdee 14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

These wiki links should be mentioned somewhere in the section. They're well written scientific pages on the subject.

• Extraterrestrial life - suggests life's energy can come from a star, geothermal, or tidal flexing.
• Alternative biochemistry - suggests that in addition to water, carbon, or oxygen, life could be based on with silicon, ammonia, chlorine, nitrogen, phosphorous, or sulfur
• Astrobiology - the science of what?how?why?where? life forms.
• Extremophile - unicellular organisms that exist in extreme conditions

And of course none of these make any absolute statements, they only present ideas as theories, just like the theory that life does not exist on certain planets (notice how nobody actually has that theory other than UCAR which has a factual error). Cuñado - Talk 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason that "nobody has that theory" is that really, a lot of people have that theory, but it's so obvious and well-known that nobody bothers saying or referencing it. It only gets mentioned in passing. The statement that there is no life on Mercury doesn't need references any more than a statement about the Earth being round. There is no "factual error"--the UCAR site assumes in context that "water" refers to liquid water and not ice. And finally, if you're going to claim that science hasn't made absolute statements because there are only theories, then we should delete the whole article, because all science is is theories.

I am also against including any of those links you mention. You obviously want them included because you think they imply your religious teachings about life on other planets may be true. And they don't, because the scriptures you are trying to interpret literally talk about every planet, and those links are not about every planet. "Some planets with extreme conditions" is not "every planet". Ken Arromdee 14:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As much as I don't think that a literal interpretation of the writings is correct, and that there probably is not life on every planet, Ken I think you're choosing to ignore the valid points made by ChristianGruber above relating to the hyperbolic style of writing that was used in the writings, and are sticking also to a literal reading of the writings. -- Jeff3000 15:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! You know why nobody says the earth is round? Because it's not [5]. And to me it's so obvious that life is POSSIBLE anywhere in the universe that I don't need a reference. It is not obvious that any planet is lifeless. I don't know what else to say. I've tried to support it with logic and references, and put it side by side with the possibility of interpreting creatures as rocks (which seems ridiculous to me). Cuñado - Talk 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies in advance, Cuñado, but you have not been arguing effectively that life is possible on every planet, but arguing that life would be found on every planet — your whole where-there's-water-there's-life thesis. I addressed your logic and showed it to be wanting. (Reproduced here for ease: The structure of the thesis that "there must be life on every planet, we just haven't found it yet" suffers from the fallacy of composition. (i.e. We observe living creatures here on Earth. Bahá'u'lláh says that creatures exist everywhere (an appeal to authority), therefore living creatures exist everywhere.) This reasoning is backwards. It begins with the false premise of fixed and narrow definitions and only then seeks evidence to back it up. In the absence of supporting evidence, or in the face of inconvenient contrary evidence, it reaches for "as yet undiscovered" support. )

Your recent references do add to the discussion. They do support the conclusion that the question of life on other planets is still open. They, unfortunately, do not support the argument that life must exist on every planet. It is categorically a fallacy to assert that because something might happen that it must — a Fallacy of the Consequent.

Further, the first definition of "creature" cited above clearly indicates that it does, in fact, include the mineral kingdom. "Ridiculous" to you, or not, that is what the word means. This figurative interpretation does hinge on these definitions; but as that definition is correct (Please see the citations again.), and the logic is valid (It merely inserts these definitions into the statement.), why do you reject the conclusion? It jibes both with the language and the best current scientific understanding — points that several people here have recognized. You seem to be the only one who doesn't. MARussellPESE 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah's statement that "...every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures...." is unprovable without checking every star and searching--ad infinitum if necessary--for creatures on every planet. If he had written the opposite, that no life would be found, then such a statement would be contradicted as soon as an alien bunny rabbit or whatever is found on another planet. My point is that the article should highlight that Baha'u'llah's assertion is irrelevant from a scientific point of view, although incidentally it could serve to inspire people to be more positive when searching for life beyond Earth. --Occamy 22:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested re-write

It seems like we are getting somewhere. Here's my shot at re-writing the section... Cuñado - Talk

Life on other planets

Bahá'u'lláh stated:

"The learned men, [divines] that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 162-163 [Emphasis added.])

Some detailed issues arising from the statement include:

1. By "planet", does that include moons? Is he referring only to terrestrial planets, meteors, or also gas giants?
2. By "creatures", is he referring to intelligent life, microorganisms, or minerals?
3. Does "every" really mean "every," or perhaps something closer to "very many"?

Very few Bahá'í sources deal with this idea in any detail, so interpretations can range greatly and are reliant more on science than on scriptural reference. In fact Shoghi Effendi said:

"Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 478)

One interpretation that would reconcile both with Bahá'u'lláh's statement and current understanding of Astrobiology and Planetary science, is that the words "creature" and "planet" could be defined respectively as "Anything created" and "A celestial body which revolves about the sun in an orbit".

Support for this idea include 'Abdu'l-Bahá's references to the mineral kingdom as part of the "world of creation", and the nebular theory of star formation would suggest that each star develops orbiting bodies as it forms.

Another possible interpretation that would reconcile with current scientific understanding is that Baha'u'llah was using a hyperbole, or a figure of speech, and by saying "every" it wasn't meant to be a scientific statement. In other places, Baha'u'llah says things like "every man of insight would testify..." or "every man will declare himself a believer", when clearly these aren't meant to be statistical. This idea is supported by the fact that hyperboles were common literary devices of Persian culture in the nineteenth century.

If "creatures" is to be defined as cellular life, then it would be contrary to the consensus of scientists (in an informal survey of scientists in 2005, 75 percent reported a belief that life does not currently exist on Mars [6]). Newer theories of alternative biochemistry suggest that cellular life such as extremophiles could possibly survive in environments previously deemed inhospitable, and could be based on silicon, ammonia, chlorine, phosphorous, or sulfur, in addition to the traditional nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Further supporting this idea is the hypothesis of panspermia, that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe and life appears soon after the formation of any planet.

On the subject of extraterrestrial life, the Universal House of Justice wrote the following:

"As you rightly state, Bahá'u'lláh affirms that every fixed star has its planets, and every planet its own creatures. The House of Justice states however, that it has not discovered anything in the Bahá'í Writings which would indicate the degree of progress such creatures may have attained. Obviously, as creatures of earth have managed to construct space probes and send them into outer space, it can be believed that creatures on other planets may have succeeded in doing likewise."

(From a letter dated 11 January 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Aug 06, Sabeans, UFOs, Alien Abduction and Genetic Engineering)

For more on this subject, see this article.

Comments

I am ready to never look at this page again. Cuñado - Talk 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This still has problems. Since even one example disproves a claim that literally all planets have life, your example should be a planet where scientists think life is *least* likely. Mars is about the most likely planet to have life. In other words, instead of saying 75% of scientists think there's no life on Mars, you should say that basically all scientists think there's no life on Mercury.

And not only is your definition of panspermia wrong (it suggests that life appears on every *hospitable* planet, not every planet), you seem to not understand the difference between "common" and "every planet". You've been constantly trying to point out that scientists think life is common, or more common than once believed, or may exist in unusual environments, or whatever. You seem to be implying that because life is common, life exists on every planet. This is a fallacy. "Lots of life" and "every planet" are not the same thing. No number of references to how common life is in the universe will ever mean that life is on every planet, and by suggesting they are such, you are distorting science. Ken Arromdee 05:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the opinions of some scientists is the best reference so far to support your ideas. Previously you said "it's just so obvious". The section is carefully worded, because their opinion is different from saying "it's a researched, proven, and established fact". And if 75% of scientists have the opinion that Mars is currently lifeless, then the implications on less hospitable planets is obvious.

I have never said that water equates to life, I never said that scientists think life is on every planet, or many other things that have been attributed to me on this talk page. The basis of Panspermia is simple: life is on earth. It either got here by being deposited, or it was already here when the earth began to cool. The earth supported life very soon after forming, that would imply that the earth and our solar system is a either an unique situation, or the universe is covered with the seeds of life. How is that not a related theory? Maybe my wording was not the best.

Please notice that I supported other ideas in re-writing the article (which I think are ridiculous). Everyone I've talked to outside of this talk page thinks you guys are nuts, so at least give me a break and help me write one single paragraph about the POSSIBILITY of life everywhere. Cuñado - Talk 19:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Panspermia implies that life is common in the universe, but as I've been trying to point out, saying that life is common and life is on every planet are different things. You keep on trying to point out cases where scientists think life may be common, as examples of scientists thinking life is everywhere. "Common" is not the same as "everywhere". Panspermia does not support the idea that life exists on *every planet*, only that it is common.

And I'm not going to give you a break in writing a paragraph about the possibility of life everywhere, because scientists don't consider that a possibility. Lots of places, yes. Everywhere, no. Please understand the difference between "lots of places" and "everywhere". Ken Arromdee 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Cuñado, "ridiculous" and "nuts" really raises the tone of the discussion a notch. Thank you so very much. (Makes me regret opening up a Wikiquette alert. Golly, what was I thinking.) Nobody's used perjoratives with you or your contributions — but, perhaps we should all rise to this new standard of excellence.

I don't like the "hyperbole" paragraph at all. It's been suggested previously here, could well be true, but I've repeatedly asked for attribution and seen none. Let's cite our sources, shall we?

The alternative life-forms paragraph could add much, if re-worked somewhat, I think. The "informal survey" doesn't make the point well, the panspermia article indicates that that hypothesis is not without significant scientific challenges, and the paragraph needs qualification of the possibility of life on many, but not necessarily all, worlds. Let's try this:

Supported by this statement, many Bahá'ís are excited at the possibility of finding extra-terrestrial life on many worlds. Scientific theories of extra-terrestrial life (astrobiology) is rapidly evolving. Unicellular organisms, termed extremophiles, have been found in a variety of extreme, even inhospitable, environments here on Earth. Theoretical alternative biochemistry considers the possibility of life-forms based on silicon, ammonia, chlorine, phosphorous, or sulfur, in addition to the traditional nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen.

Cuñado, unfortunately these theories don't address the possibility of life on each-and-every world; they're just not that developed as theoretical frameworks. They do suggest that life is lots more common than just what could be found here on Earth. Can you live with that?

Ken, can you live with the "figurative interpretation" addressing adequately the "creatures on each-and-every world" reading?

If you guys can, then we can take Cuñado's writeup, strike the hyperbole paragraph, and substitute the above paragraph for the alternative biochemistries paragraph; asssuming y'all don't take issue with it.

I can live with the figurative interpretation, but I don't like the above writeup. When it claims that finding life in more places would excite Baha'is, the implication is that it excites Baha'is because it proves their scripture to be literally correct. In fact, it proves no such thing. And rewriting it to get rid of that implication will be very hard. Ken Arromdee 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor points — the "creatures and planets" figurative interpretation reconciles biology with planetary science, not astrobiology. There's also some minor copyediting, like italicizing book titles, that would be needed.

MARussellPESE 21:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Old man, I agree references would be good for the hyperbole idea, but I couldn't find any. I suggest taking out the part about it being a common device in Persia, but still mentioning that it could be hyperbole.

Ken, in the simplest form of the theory, panspermia says that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe. The details are not defined because it is a theory with varying ideas of how and why. The point I've been trying to make from the beginning is that in this field nothing is conclusive, and any attempts to make a conclusion are just theories and opinions, including the opinion about Mars, and including my own opinion. Can you say that cellular life is not floating around in space? Can I say that it is? Of course, but it's not supported by anything except opinion and speculation. Whether or not you agree with the idea of the universe being covered in the sperms of life is irrelevant. It is an established theory that is highly related to the topic of discussion and "It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating" [7]. And if it is true than the universe is literally "covered" in it.

How about these: Cuñado - Talk 23:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Another possible interpretation that would reconcile with current scientific understanding is that Baha'u'llah was using a hyperbole, or a figure of speech, and by saying "every" it wasn't meant to be a scientific statement. In other places, Baha'u'llah says "every man of insight would testify..." or "every man will declare himself a believer", when clearly these aren't meant to be statistical.

If "creatures" is to be defined as cellular life, then it would be contrary to the consensus of scientists (in an informal survey of scientists in 2005, 75 percent reported a belief that life does not currently exist on Mars [8]).

Supporting the idea of cellular life on every planet are theories of alternative biochemistry, suggesting that cellular life such as extremophiles could possibly survive in environments previously deemed inhospitable, and could be based on silicon, ammonia, chlorine, phosphorous, or sulfur, in addition to the traditional nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen.

The new theories of panspermia, that "microbial life is present in space... and can be safely delivered to planets and start life there," or radio-panspermia, that "naked cells might travel interstellar distances propelled by light pressure," [9] combined with the recent discovery of apparently immortal bacterial spores [10] all support a more literal interpretation of Baha'u'llah's quotation.

No, those are inappropriate. Those don't support the literal interpretation at all. As before, they support the idea that life is in lots of places, but "lots of places" is not the same as "every planet". Extremophiles may survive in more environments than we thought--but more environments than we thought is not every environment or every planet. Panspermia may mean life is common--but "common" doesn't mean "every planet".

Scientists do *not* think it's possible there's life on every planet, and using alternative biology or panspermia to claim that they do is distorting science.

The Mars reference is still bad for the reason I gave above--Mars is about the most likely place to find life, and your reference should be one of the least likely places. "Essentially all scientists believe there is no life on Mercury" is a much stronger statement than saying that only 75% believe there's no life on Mars. Ken Arromdee 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think our understandings of panspermia are different. From reading through a lot of pages I got the impression that it's not claiming that life is common, it's claiming that single cells of life are literally everywhere, floating around in space, on both hospitable and non-hospitable planets (at least one form of panspermia, I read through other forms which don't support that). Whether or not they develop into higher forms of life would depend on the hospitability of the planet of course, which you mentioned. I think the problem here is stating clearly what the theory represents, and I thought I did that.

Like I've been saying all along, if you have a good reference to research or opinions of life on Mercury, please provide it (other than the UCAR reference). The one I used is recent, statistical, and done by the EU space agency. Like I said, the implications of less hospitable planets is obvious. Cuñado - Talk 00:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As much as I hate to bring up Mercury again, I just looked through a dozen professional articles on research of Mercury, and none of them came to a conclusion of it being lifeless. [11][12][13][14] Instead, they talked a lot about how little is known about it, it's difficult to study, and has a lot of mysteries about what goes on there. The only references that made a statement like "there can't be any kind of life on Mercury" [15] appear to be for children. Cuñado - Talk 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we take a time-out?

Cuñado and I are caught (As is true almost everywhere but than on this page — on the same side.) in a heated discussion elsewhere. Can we take a time-out for about a week and let this cool down so that we can get back to making cogent contributions rather than distracted ones?

Can I also ask, Ken and Cuñado, that we please present upon return an itemized list of what we must see, would like to see, and can't live with seeing on the page? We're getting jammed up in the details and haven't agreed on an outline. For example, I'm still not sure that Cuñado is insisting on a "life forms will found on each-and-every world" reading or not. That seems to be where your going with these sources, but recently you asked us to accept the possibility of life on every (Is that each-and-every or not?) planet. And Ken, I'm still not sure on what overall structure or individual points you'd live with as most of your comments are highly detailed to date. MARussellPESE 15:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what we must see is a clear statement that if you interpret the reference to mean that there is life on each and every planet, science says you are wrong.

That is exactly what I will not allow posted. That's been the argument from the very beginning. Cuñado - Talk

What we should *not* see is anything which waters this down.

Pointing to scientific ideas that imply life in more places than we might expect, as if that means there may be life on every planet (which it doesn't) is an attempt to water this down. So is mentioning Mars instead of Mercury. Ken Arromdee 18:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion?

Here's another solution that might solve all of this. It is my previous suggestion with all of our "possible interpretations" taken out. Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Life on other planets

Bahá'u'lláh stated:

"The learned men, [divines] that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pp. 162-163 [Emphasis added.])

Some detailed issues arising from the statement include:

1. By "planet", does that include moons? Is he referring only to terrestrial planets, meteors, or also gas giants?
2. By "creatures", is he referring to intelligent life, microorganisms, or minerals?
3. Does "every" really mean "every," or perhaps something closer to "very many"?

Very few Bahá'í sources deal with this idea in any detail, so interpretations can range greatly and are reliant more on science than on scriptural reference. In fact Shoghi Effendi said:

"Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 478)

On the subject of extraterrestrial life, the Universal House of Justice wrote the following:

"As you rightly state, Bahá'u'lláh affirms that every fixed star has its planets, and every planet its own creatures. The House of Justice states however, that it has not discovered anything in the Bahá'í Writings which would indicate the degree of progress such creatures may have attained. Obviously, as creatures of earth have managed to construct space probes and send them into outer space, it can be believed that creatures on other planets may have succeeded in doing likewise."

(From a letter dated 11 January 1982 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

(The Universal House of Justice, 1996 Aug 06, Sabeans, UFOs, Alien Abduction and Genetic Engineering)

For more on this subject, see this article.

Comments here

Can we all agree on this? Cuñado - Talk 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It took a lot to drop the paragraphs on the cutting-edge alternative biochemistries. That should move the discussion far along. Mille grazie, Cuñado.

Because the article would still cite the "detailed issues", I'm partial to this paragraph (Edited slighltly from Cuñado's original):

One reading that would agree with both Bahá'u'lláh's statement and current understanding of biology and planetary science, is that the words "creature" and "planet" could be defined respectively as "anything created" and "a celestial body which revolves about the sun in an orbit". This approach finds support in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's references to the mineral kingdom as part of the "world of creation", and that the nebular theory of star formation would suggest that each star develops orbiting bodies as it forms.

The reason being that recognizing the broader definitions of the verbiage addresses the "detailed issues" raised.

I see two solutions. Either drop the "detailed issues" paragraph and list — or include the linguistic-based discussion. I have no attachment whatever to the "detailed issues." These were part of the original article, and I don't think any of us have expressed that they should remain.

Thanks again, Cuñado. This is much closer to neutral and is well-sourced on the Bahá'í side. MARussellPESE

It's neutral only at the cost of taking out the conflict between the literal interpretation and science. The literal interpretation *does* conflict with science, and the article should say so. It's like having an article about creationism which won't say "scientists don't believe the world is only 5000 years old".

I suggest a condensed version of the formulation from before: "Taken on its face, this statement is contradicted directly by current understanding in planetary science. Scientists have long believed in the possibility of other planets outside the solar system; they do not, however, extend this belief to every star. Likewise, while some scientists think planets such as Mars may bear life, they do not consider every planet to be such a possibility." Ken Arromdee 15:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Old man, I took out the opinions because it was an all-or-nothing deal. If you insert the bit about creatures being minerals than that negates the whole compromise and would allow this debate to continue about how to insert other opinions. No Baha'i article I found (and I looked through many) mentioned any kind of interpretation, so I realized the best thing would be to mention that and not put ours in.

Ken, the science issue is different from the Baha'i issue. In an area that is almost completely unresearched and scientific ideas are based on theories, you can't say that any conclusion is definite. Try to offer a suggestion and write a paragraph that takes that into account, and we can add that to the above re-write. Cuñado - Talk 17:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the statement that "Taken on its face, this statement is contradicted by current understanding in planetary science. If one planet is found without life, or one star found without a planet, then the statement would be false." to be objectionable. Planetary science simply doesn't have the tools to make a clear statement as per the first sentance in the article; new findings are coming through so quickly, some of them contradicting current theories of planetary formation, that those theories are either greatly weakened or must be relegated to hypotheses. Wikipedia's article on Planetary Science is little more than a stub, which tells you something about the state of the art. As to the second sentance of the quote, it adds nothing to the article about reality: if... renders the sentance pointless....If little green men are found on Mars...and so on. As yet, scientists have nothing definitive to say about the subject. --Occamy 20:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, I would appreciate being called by name. It's a courtesy I extend to you that I expect to see returned.

You call me "son" on my talk page but can't take a little humor in the other direction? Cuñado - Talk

Once was funny. Twice wasn't. MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, point of fact no Bahá'í source I've seen supports the line of reasoning you are pursuing. I don't understand why you have problems with looking at the definitions of the words themselves and considering their implications to the passage. LambaJan, someone with a linguistics training, considered it valid. Do the words not mean what the dictionary says? Is that reading factually incorrect? Are you a linguist, or did you translate it yourself, and can tell us what the passage really means? Or, is it that you've already made up your mind? If that's the case, you're in for a rough time because one's understanding is supposed to evolve. That's called growth.

I've been saying exactly the same thing to you this entire time. Have you already made up your mind? No Baha'i source supports either of our interpretations, so this argument is meaningless to me. Cuñado - Talk

Granted, there aren't official readings of this one way or the other but all I'm doing is reading the passage with the dictionary open. Since this discussion is hanging on the translation I asked around and every Persian believer I've spoken to (And that includes some very seasoned believers — ones who could call me "son" without my thinking twice.) considers this passage entirely figurative. MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ken, Occamy is correct. The data are not all in. While I think scienctists can say that carbon-based life won't be found in the absence of liquid water; they can't make definitive statements that no form of life conceivable will be found anywhere. Most of the alternative biochemistries Cuñado has identified are not advanced beyond the hypothetical yet; but they are provocative and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I agree with Occamy the "Taken on its face ..." paragraph isn't appropriate.

The problem with saying that the data aren't all in is that if you're going that route, this should be a blank page, because science never claims to have all the data in about anything. Any reasonable statement about whether something is consistent with science cannot require that all the data be in. Ken Arromdee 05:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. We had all the data we needed to determine unequivocally that the earth is at the center of the universe, until more data came in. We only just figured out if the universe was going to expand forever or go through a "big-cruch." The data are always "coming in," but I agree with you that, "based on current understanding," scientists 'can' make definitive statements. I think Occamy's got problems with unequivocal absolute statements in general. I see that point. This paragraph should, and did, have enough qualifiers I think to address your concerns that the scientific position deserves clear statement without making it an "absolute and for all time" kind of statement. I think your comfortable with that, no? MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, you are, and Ken, you seem to be, insisting on a literal reading of the passage. Frankly, I'm not sure you're both not doing so to pursue your own agendas. If offered a clear answer to the literal reading that is sourced and logical. (Cuñado, that's not an opinion — it's reason. There's a difference. And it's what I've been using with Jeffmichaud over on the Baha'i divisions.) I offered it to cut through your arguments over details — becuase it renders moot the all-or-nothing arguments you're both raising.

If you're both going to insist upon reading this passage literally and cherry-picking the meaning you want to see there's no point in this discussion.

I am not insisting on reading it literally. Rather, what I want to say is "*if* you read it literally, science says you are wrong." If you want to read it non-literally, that's fine with me. I have no objection to including the interpretation that minerals are creatures, for instance. Ken Arromdee 05:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That clarifies a great deal. MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Further, if you both want to read this literally, then provide a documented source for criticism and/or support.

I don't want to read it literally; I just want to say that the people who do are contradicted by science. Ken Arromdee 05:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall we cite our sources? MARussellPESE 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the page to my last suggested write-up without any of the currently debated issues. We're all essentially vetoing each other's ideas, so as far as I'm concerned I'm done putting energy into this page. If anybody wants to offer suggestions for new paragraphs then go ahead. Cuñado - Talk 01:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, I've already asked you not to make unilateral edits on this disputed material. (Please see Wikipedia:Edit_summary in disputes, and especially Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes Deleting without announcing that you're doing it.) You've removed documented external sources on the definitions of these words which are pertinent to reading the passage. It isn't a wikepedia policy to remove documented sources that I'm aware of.

Actually, as I re-read this we are not vetoing each others' ideas. Seems Ken and I agree on almost, if not, all points. (Some have objected to assertions that science can state unequivocally that life can not exist somewhere. While this objection ignores some basics of organic chemistry and physics, the only known chemistry that supports complex organisms; it is logically similar to asserting that life will exist everywhere. Both are problematic absolutes. Your intriguing discussion of alternative biochemistries has the potential to address the absolute statement "no life in such and such a place", but because these are still very hypothetical its discussion doesn't actually refute the "no life in this place" statement fully and doesn't rise to "all places everywhere.")

You are the one vetoing discussion about a figurative interpretation — the one argument presented here that defuses the "whose absolute is to be believed" fracas. Ken added it originally, not me. You are the one who's removed twice without discussion either time. The substance of your counter-argument is that its "ridiculous." I'd expect to see something a little more substantive before removing it when several people have expressed explicit support.

Brace yourself, I'll be putting the that discussion back in. As clarified well previously, this reading is based on sourced material and merely re-reads the passage with these definitions inserted. This is not an opinion, it's a logical argument — and as simple as it gets as it's only subsituting bona-fide definitions into the syntax of the statement. I don't know how much more objective one can be. MARussellPESE 20:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It just keeps going

As to my "unilateral edit", I re-wrote the article to take out the disputed parts, not to add my disputed idea.

As to your mention of using the word definitions, I have two points. First, I regard both of our opinions (yours being creature=minerals, mine being creature=cellular life) as completely valid and neither as being either more or less authoritative, so you'll notice that I didn't just delete the interpretation as minerals, I also deleted the interpretation as cellular life. Second point, the "definitions of these words which are pertinent to reading the passage" include two definitions, and you have consistently ignored the most obvious definition of creature, which is:

• 1. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water.
• 2. A human.
• 3. An imaginary or fantastical being: mythological creatures; a creature from outer space.

And I think there is a problem with presenting creature=mineral as the official "answer", which brings us to the next topic...

When it comes down to it Ken said that the article must say that science has conclusively disproven this statement if creature is interpreted as cellular life. I said that such a statement is contrary to good science and that considering how very little research and evidence exists, such a conclusion is premature (notice how I didn't say that there is proof of life on every planet). Given this situation, the only conclusion I could come up with was to remove either such statement from the article, because it is not necessary to mention either. Please read the section as it currently exists. I think it does not need any more editing, and we can all never look at this God-forsaken talk page again. Cuñado - Talk 06:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuñado, with all due respect, you can not say that the first definition is exactly what the Guardian had in mind when he translated this passage. This from The Priceless Pearl is exactly on-point.

Although he [ Shoghi Effendi ] had such a brilliant command of language he frequently reinforced his knowledge by certainty through looking up the word he planned to use in Webster's big dictionary. Often one of my functions was to hand it to him and it was a weighty tome indeed! Not infrequently his choice would be the third or fourth usage of the word, sometimes bordering on the archaic, but it was the exact word that conveyed his meaning and so he used it. [Emphasis added.] I remember my mother once saying that to become a Bahá'í was like entering a university, only one never finished learning, never graduated. In his translations of the Bahá'í writings, and above all in his own compositions, Shoghi Effendi set a standard that educates and raises the cultural level of the reader at the same time that it feeds his mind and soul with thoughts and truth.

(Ruhiyyih Khanum, The Priceless Pearl, p. 196)

If you're not familiar with that passage then apologies are due, but that seems to validate my approach at least. Clearly "the most obvious definition" isn't necessarily what even the Guardian had in mind.

You misrepresented the definition of "creature" in your own source. How can the "the most obvious definition" necessarily be the second one? Allow me to present it exactly as it appears there:

1. Something created.

2a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water. b. A human. c. An imaginary or fantastical being: mythological creatures; a creature from outer space.

3. One dependent on or subservient to another.

Presenting one's sources fully and fairly is fundamental to carrying out an honest discussion. Frankly this make me question the integrity of this entire exercise.

I never presented this as an "official" answer.

Modern biology and chemistry are each over 200 years old and organic chemistry is over 150 years old. These are not robust enough to reach a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of carbon-based organisms on planetoids that do not have liquid water? Respectfully, are you a biologist or chemist who can make that assertion?

The point of science (and engineering) is to develop deeper understandings of natural phenomena so as to explain and predict (or design for) the same. Scientists (and engineers) recognize full well that all possible data are not available, but they (we) don't let that stop them (us) from developing working theories to explain what they (we) have seen and do know. They (we) also know full well that the latest discovery (earthquake/hurricane) can toss all their (our) training out the window and force them (us) to develop new theories. Kuhn's The Structure of Scietific Revolutions is an absolute must-read for anyone who wants to understand what good science is and is not.

The article as it stands today says nothing really meaningful. It neither acknowledges what science can say, nor the potential meaning of the passage. It just jinks and dodges. It was much better before you started editing it again on 10-Nov-05. My objection to your edits is that you, yourself, decided to remove these statements that you alone appear to disagree with.

All, the 06-Nov-05 version was the last prior to Cuñado's recent edits. Ken, Jeff3000, and I have objected to some or all of them. I recommend going back to that version. MARussellPESE 16:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not trying to be misleading, I copied the second meaning onto this page and mentioned the first.

But you based your argument on the idea that it was the "obvious" one when the principal definition in that source does not exclude non-living created things. MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I know how Shoghi Effendi translated, but since neither of us know which meaning he meant, it's irrelevant to point this out.

Really? Why have you been arguing all this time that to read it literally and stating the figurative reading is "ridiculous?" MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I put the article in a neutral position and improved other minor points, stop trying to act like it was a sin.

Neutral to your own perspective. Everyone who's commented since then have specifically said that the mercury reference belongs back in. Editing disputed pages isn't a sin, but it is bad form as cited earlier. MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I didn't insist that it stay that way.

No, you've only unilaterally edited the article several times to exclude items you disagree with. MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't insist that my idea was the only possible interpretation, only that yours isn't either.

I've never said it was. I only ever said that is was one way to read it — one that happens to jibe with current scientific understanding. As the logic is sound (you've not demonstrated it to be flawed) and the definitions true I object to it's unilateral removal because you, and only you, find it objectionable. MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you insist that the article needs to mention the various possible interpretations, then 1) you can't exclude other equally valid points 2) you can't say science has disproved the idea of creatures as cellular life. Now we're back to arguing. Cuñado - Talk 18:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Which valid point are you talking about? Actually, biologists can, and do, say that cellular life can not live on particular planets outside earth. You've discounted UCAR out-of-hand (Even though its funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Center for Space Environment Modeling and the Center for Integrated Space Weather Modeling — these bodies don't pass muster?) Would you accept:

• The National Science Foundation as an authority? — "... unlike Mercury, Venus and Mars, its fellow rocky planets of the inner solar system, Earth is at just the right distance from the Sun to keep those oceans from freezing or boiling away. The result is a cosmic oasis: one of the very few places in our otherwise sterile solar system that has abundant liquid water, which is an essential prerequisite to life as we know it."
• NASA as an authority?
• NASA again as an authority? — "Some stars have a planet orbiting them at a distance at which living things could exist. Most scientists consider liquid water essential for life, so a region that is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water is known as a habitable zone. Although astronomers have found stars with planets in their habitable zones, all the planets found so far are probably gaseous with no solid surface. But they may have solid moons."
• An astronomer as an authority?
• The UK Royal Observatory Greenwich and National Maritime Museum as an authority? — "We know that, apart from the Earth, none of the planets in the Solar system have life on them."
• The BBC as an authority? — "Biologists studying primitive organisms all agree on one thing. Liquid water is absolutely essential for life to evolve and survive. The search for life on other worlds is a search for places where water can exist in liquid form." (Interestingly enough this page is parallel to the your own BBC source cited earlier that many scientists do expect to find life on other worlds. Never disputed — but even it's crystal clear: "We can ignore Mercury, because it's too close to the Sun, so it's too hot. And Pluto is too cold and far away to support life.")

Nobody has said that we wouldn't ever find life in interesting places[16]. What we are saying is that we won't find life as we know it everywhere, which is exactly what the paragraph you excised said — and would not support a literal reading of the passage that insists that "creature" mean "living thing". MARussellPESE 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I'm so tired of this argument. I think we are actually in agreement, we just are fighting over details. None of those references you just provided contradict what I've been trying to get across, which leads me to the conclusion that I'm not communicating very well. Try re-writing the section and let's see what happens. Cuñado - Talk 22:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do. MARussellPESE 14:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I tried to:

1. Keep statements to those strictly sourced.
2. Identify the current state of the scientific understanding per 1.
3. Note the definitions of the words "creature" and "planet" per 1.
4. Note the Bahá'í expectation of finding intelligent life on other worlds using the UHJ message and per 1.
5. Avoided discussion of hypothetical positions (panspermia, alternative biochemistry) as these are either controversial in the field itself (panspermia) or very, very preliminary (alternative biochemistry) and seem to distract focus on the passage.
6. Provide a representative "See also" section without being excessive. (The BBC page is well inter-linked and provides a good jumping-off point to other sources.
7. Write tight prose and keep the article to one screen. (The ether section is a bit verbose, and I think we can get the points out here succintly.)

There's one exception to item 1. The "Taken together," paragraph ties up the two definitions, but doesn't make as definitive a statement as the previous edition. MARussellPESE 22:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about point 4. I think it's likely that Cunado originally added the paragraph because either 1) he thinks it confirms the idea of life on literally every planet or 2) it disproves any claim that 'creatures' can include minerals because the quote is obviously talking about living things. Neither of these conclusions is correct and I can't think of any legitimate reason to include the reference. I would take this out.

Furthermore, there's no reason to have a whole paragraph about the definition of 'planet' and rerefences to the nebular theory. The paragraph structure makes it sound like that's there to show that 'planet' can be interpreted non-literally--yet it's really about interpreting it literally. I'd take that out and add a brief sentence saying that science does think that other planets may be common.

I really don't want the statement that the literal interpretation is not consistent with science, to be buried in reams of extraneous information. Do you mind if I make either of these changes? Ken Arromdee 02:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with everything Ken just said, and I would suggest...

Take out this:

Taken together, the idea that each star has planets, and that each contains creatures, as these words were used at the time, becomes less a scientific statement than one emphasizing the extent of the creation.

and add this:

Very few Bahá'í sources deal with this idea in any detail, so interpretations can range greatly and are reliant more on science than on scriptural reference. In fact Shoghi Effendi said:

"Bahá'u'lláh does not specifically state whether such creatures are like or unlike us. He simply refers to the fact that there are creatures in every planet. It remains for science to discover one day the exact nature of these creatures."

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 478)

I think it's important to mention the fact that there is no official interpretation. Unless you want to break out in the whole argument again, I don't think you should push the whole not-consistent-with-science thing. The way it currently is worded is accurate and doesn't go into too much detail. The quote from the House, if not directly related to the argument, is relevant to the subject of life on other planets. The nebular theory seems relevant too, don't know what else to say. Cuñado - Talk 06:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't push the "inconsistent with science" idea, but it *should* push the "literal interpretation inconsistent with science idea". Because it *is*.

The quote from the House, not being directly related to the argument, should be removed or put in another section, and the same for the nebular theory. The way these quotes are placed, they seem like they're there to support the idea that the literal interpretation is consistent with science. Since they don't really do so, they end up just being noise. Ken Arromdee 14:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ken, I think you have a good point that the selection from the House is "noise." This passage from the House doesn't directly support the "life-forms on each-and-every planet" reading, but I don't think that is has to be removed. As presented it discusses extra-terrestrial intelligence which is topical in such a discussion. Does this have to be removed you think?

That selection, and the other one from the Guardian, points out to me that even at the level of people writing on behalf of Bahá'í institutions the thinking can be muddled and mis-informed. These institutions are not absolutely infallible. We consider them so only in the arenas that are stipulated for them. (A discussion on the infallibilties of these is outside the scope here, but I think it's fair to say that scientific endeavours are not included. Both selections make me uncomfortable because of that.)

We can drop the sentence on the nebular theory, if you insist, but I think that the theory is on-point and is a point of contact between both perspectives. We should keep the definition of planet, however, as that is directly on-point.

I've broken the paragraph on the literal interpretation into two sentences. It's about as unequivocal as it can be: "current understanding" of "known" life can't exist without liquid water. I also have two external references that are unequivocal themselves. Cuñado's point that there are other theoretical alternative biochemistries is on-point here, and well taken. There is active research going on in these fields and much yet to be discovered there — but undiscovered discoveries don't inform the discussion of this selection, so that's why I've left it out.

Cuñado, please provide some reasoning to remove the "Taken together" paragraph. The reading flows logically as is. Removing it and inserting the selection from Shoghi Effendi would not flow. Is there something non-factual here? Is Bahá'u'lláh really making a scientific statement? (Personally don't think so.) Or is He skewering the divines for presuming that Creation is limited to their particular perspective? (Personally do think so, and seems to fit the whole passage.) That's a charge I'd lay at the feet of materialistic scientists too.

I agree that there is no official reading/interpretation and we rely on science. I think that that would do well to be early on in the article — where I should have put it in the first place. My bad.

I don't think that the selection from Shoghi Effendi adds to the discussion here as is seems redundant with the selection from the House. As that selection points towards extra-terrestrial intelligence more clearly, I'd prefer to use that one if we must use any of these.

I'll blend these three paragraphs into one so as to de-emphasize the individual points. Does that help?

All, I don't think that adding references to extra-solar planets, exciting as that research is, adds to the particular discussion.

I'll edit it to reflect these suggestions so that we can see first-hand what it'd look like. Sorry, if I'm stepping on toes here. Please advise. MARussellPESE 15:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

minor edits

I made a few asthetic changes, like not boldening the words "creature" and "planet". I added a comment about cellular life which I think is quite reasonably and even Ken won't mind. I added a link to here, not insinuating that there is scientific evidence, but it's a comprehensive link for anyone interested in the subject. Cuñado - Talk 23:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree basically with Cuñado. It is quite valid to point out that there is a wide ranging theoretical discussion on alternative life-forms. I really like the excellent source you cite here. It certainly belongs. The section on [plasma-based life] is especially intriguing, something new to me, and supports strongly the idea of "life-in-lots-and-lots-of-places."

I should point out that that source actually asserts that life won't be found on Mercury (Ye Gods — are we there again?? I hope not.) and details the various difficulties with alternative biochemistries. Perhaps we can edit the opening clause to read: "Aside from pointing to the likelyhood of discovering new forms of life in a variety of places" That's a lot less definite than we'll find life everywhere, which I don't think we're trying to say?

MARussellPESE 14:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's my problem with many of Cunado's changes. "Life in lots and lots of places" doesn't support the idea of "life everywhere". But in context, it sounds like the article, by juxtaposing it with the scripture quote and implying direct relevancy, is using it to support just that. Ken Arromdee 16:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always recognized that there is no scientific evidence of life on every planet, but I've been trying to leave that option there as an interpretation on a few bases: 1) there is no evidence to disprove it (I'm sure you would debate that) 2) there is a lot of relatively new alternative science that points in that direction. Yes Ken, life-very-common is no the same as life-on-every-planet. Evidence and research about the origins of life is something not covered in traditional science. The link contains several incredibly relevant articles, which are actually very critical of the theories.

The article right now just states that Baha'is can point to the possibility of life everywhere. How much more vague and undefinitive can I make it?? There is nothing that even suggests what the link is or what it's conclusion is. And for God's sake people are intelligent and can read the articles and come to their own conclusion about what science "says". Cuñado - Talk 18:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we're really close here gentlemen. Kudos to you both for boiling this down to one single issue.

To me, the statement "life is possible on every world" is actually a definitive, not vague, statement in that it logically implies an outcome. There's an a priori assumption I see that says that given enough time and expanded understanding we will find it everywhere. That's probably not the way a scientist would put the sentiment. They'd say a couple of things:

• "Life-forms, as we know them, are possible/impossible in these specific circumstances." — The qualifier is "as we know them", and we have several references to that effect. We've got that in the article now, and I think Cuñado's been right all along to insist that that be there.
• "Theoretical life-forms are possible/impossible in these specific circumstances." - The qualifier here is "theoretical", and several of the David Darling pages Cuñado's pointed out to us go into great depth here.

But reviewing these pages says to me that there are some serious, if not insurmountable, hurdles for life to possibly exist everywhere. Hence I'm very comfortable with "lots-and-lots" but not necessarily "each-and-every".

Could we try: "Aside from pointing to the likelyhood of discovering new forms of life in a many new environments"? MARussellPESE 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a good example, Isaac Newton discovered Calculus and several other revolutionary scientific ideas. He said that his discoveries of an ordered universe were evidence of the existence of God. People can look at Calculus and not see evidence of God, even though they're looking at the same information. But regardless, Isaac Newton's biography should mention that he believed in a logical and scientific evidence of God.

So here is one fact: the Baha'i scriptures don't go into detail. We covered that, so anything else is speculation and unofficial. When people read this statement they first think of living things on each and every planet, and this conclusion is shared by most people I've talked to. But since we're just throwing out speculation, why not include figurative interpretations like minerals being included in creatures? Sounds good to me. But saying anything other than 'there is the possibility of life on each and every planet' is a compromise.

Back to the science. I see evidence in contemplating the origins of life itself that the statement could be literal, and it does not contradict with science. Like Isaac Newton, we're looking at roughly the same evidence. However in your conclusion that science has disproved this possibility, there are several assumptions, and it is based on very little empirical evidence. The assumption of carbon based life, of an advanced stages of life, and fragile cellular life are behind the conclusion of lifeless planets. In the opinion polls of scientists, they were essentially asked if there is evidence of life on Mars, and of course the answer is no. I never claimed there is evidence of life on every planet. Another poll could ask "Is life possible on Mars?" and the answers would be completely different. Another poll asking "Is there evidence that Mars is lifeless?" and the responses would be different again. And as to the assumptions, I was trying to point to evidence and theories that degrade the credibility of statements like "Mercury is lifeless because there is no water." Because of non-carbon based life, essentially immortal cells, and the innate ambiguity of any conclusions about Mercury. But besides discrediting those, I pointed to the "wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating" that basically says life is so prevalent, that as soon as the earth became hospitable it developed complex forms of life. That would indicate that the seeds of life are everywhere. Other theories speculate that there are complex ecosystems in the ammonia oceans of Jupiter, and actual evidence that gaseous plasma can have the characteristics of life.

Back to the point. The phrase "Aside from pointing to the possibility of undiscovered cellular life on every planet" seems appropriate, and it implies that the link is pointing to the possibility, not giving conclusive evidence. That single page happens to have links to all the relevant theories and experiments mentioned, which to me point to the possibility. My compromise was not mentioning the actual arguments in the article, and I don't understand the continued attempts to change it. Cuñado - Talk 05:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing you mention points to the possibility of undiscovered cellular life on every planet. It points to the possibility of life on lots of planets--not every planet. It's like saying that since lots of people like to eat chocolate, that points to the possibility that chocolate is liked by everyone in the world. Maybe life is on 99%, or 99.99% of all planets--that still would not be every planet. "Every" is a very extreme qualifier, and even if we found life on Mercury tomorrow that would not point to the possibility of life on *every* planet.

There are at least two reasons why there won't be life on every planet:

1) Not all planets have conditions where life is likely.

2) Even if all planets did have conditions where life is likely, unlikely events do still sometimes happen. Given the huge number of planets, it's essentially certain that the unlikely event *will* happen somewhere, so it won't be true that every single planet has life.

All those theories about non-carbon-based life or whatever only affect point 1, not point 2, and therefore cannot point to the possibility of life on every planet.

(And you're misusing the theory that "life is so prevalent, that as soon as the earth became hospitable it developed complex forms of life". "As soon as" doesn't mean "literally as soon as". There's still a timeframe where the planet hasn't developed life--it's just short. Moreover, even if it did mean "literally as soon as" it still wouldn't support the idea of life on every planet, since it's limited to hospitable planets, not all planets.)

Ken Arromdee 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Ken here. His logic is sound.

There are difficulties raised by the "life is possible on each world" route.

First is the assumption that science has "very little empirical evidence." This just isn't true. It's probably hyperbole to assert that there are more scientists alive today than ever in human history. But we are in no way in the same place Galileo, Copernicus and Newton were in. Modern chemistry — arbitrarily going back to Priestly in 1771 — is over 230 years old. Modern biology has a similar pedigree. Bohr's contributions to the understanding of atomic structure and quantum mechanics are extremely profound. They explain the chemistry of the periodic table completely. There were a several elements searched for precisly because there was a missing place in the periodic table for them. Mendelev literally predicted them — in 1871. Discovery_of_the_chemical_elements

This and many other scientific advances have revolutionized the natural sciences well into the realms of theoretical scientific understanding — we are no longer limited to just what observation can tell us. And we don't wait to see observations before we make theoretical predictions. Demanding that scientists not make a prediction of whether there is, or isn't, life in such and such a place until we actually set foot there is not what science is all about. (This is functionally identical to the arguments against global warming I've had to listen to for nearly thirty years, only to see just about exactly the "middle ground" predictions come to pass on schedule — and they still refuse to accept that humans have played a role.)

The discovery of deep-sea life in 1977 is instructive. We presumed there wouldn't be anything down there. We were wrong. But we were right too. The absent data was whether there would be an energy source, not understanding the chemistry. These chemo-synthetic creatures process energy in ways we understand (bacteria use the HS compounds to process energy) and could have predicted, if we didn't actually. However, the basic biochemistry is exactly the same as what we are made out of. It still needs liquid water for one thing. (Here's an interesting link from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, but it still says: "All life as we know it requires water, an energy source and a carbon source.")

We do understand how chemicals interact, and make accurate predictions. This is why research on alternative biochemistries is useful and valid. And here's a sticking point in this route — if these predicted (i.e. theoretical) biochemistries are found to work in nature, we will have predicted it. If we can predict alternative life-forms, we, by definition, can predict where they won't be found — because the circumstances are not suitable. If we insist on saying that science can not predict where it won't be found, we can't turn around and say that it can predict where it will.

The alternative life-forms discussed on Darling's site have serious problems and seem to require even more closely tailored environments than we have here — Mercury and Pluto being particularly problematic. Some of these, like plasma and silicon, don't even have some fundamental characteristics of living things — like passing on traits (as we do in our genes) or growth (as we do by processing food). As such these "possibilities" aren't likely candidates.

The other difficulty is that "life is possible on each world" is semantically a definitive statement. It's not vague or qualified. "Possible" and "every" have definite meanings. If it can be shown that no life form — known or theoretical — could exist on any single world anywhere then the whole statement is false. This has been Ken's point the whole time, and I think he's been right. There's ample evidence here that scientists say just that — with the appropriate qualifier "known life".

Taking the phrase literally, to me, is anti-scientific, even if unintentional. This is the principle reason I have responded so forcefully here. It seems to presume that science can not make predictions — which is does (Mendelev did); or must wait until all conceivable data is collected before developing a theory — which is does not (Einstein never travelled at near the speed of light on a train before developing Special Relativity.). No responsible scientist would ever presume that their prediction will always and forever be true (Einstein corrected Newton and Kepler with respect to Mercury's orbital behaviour.), but neither would they accept that they can never nor forever make educated predictions — including negative ones.

I don't think it unreasonable to scientifically qualify assertions about where life will, and won't, be found in an article that illustrates the harmony between science and religion where the religion in question has not made a definitive statement itself. Hence the phrasing: "Aside from pointing to the likelyhood of discovering new forms of life in a many new environments ...". MARussellPESE 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was honestly very interesting, and having a quantifier is a good way of describing it that I didn't think of. Obviously I don't think your logic is irrefutable, but rather than start arguing points again in an endless cycle, I still think the article as it currently is worded will work fine, and doesn't make any brazenly disputable statement.

It states that Baha'is can point to this or that, and provides a link to a bunch of crazy theories that people can search through and come to their own conclusion. Certainly if you can say that Baha'is can point to minerals being included in creatures, then I can point to the possibility of future discoveries.

The other solution is to simply mention that there is no official interpretation, and not mention any of the things that Baha'is can point to. But that idea was shot down because you insisted on mentioning definitions. Here's one more idea, see if everyone can agree on this one.

Bahá'ís could point to the possibility of future discoveries that would vindicate the interpretation of creatures as living things, supported by modern evidence and theories of durable and widespread life forms [17], or point to a more broad interpretation...

How's that? The only difference is that the sentence implies that the link is about theories of durable and widespread life forms, and not that it is evidence of life on each and every planet. Cuñado - Talk 22:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that that nails it. Succint and well put. You should take the honors and put it in.

It'd be boring to merely say "there's no official viewpoint" as Bahá'í's thinking on the subject is rather broad ranging. (This six-week long dialogue is ample evidence of that, no?)

I don't think I was insisting on spiking any reference to future discoveries. If it looked that way then that's my fault. I certainly don't think that scientific understanding is closed.

I'd chalk up a lot of the difficulties here reaching closure to the "email" medium. We'd have probably gotten to closure in only a few hours over coffee. I consider face-time to be infinitely superior to email.

Mille grazie Cuñado. MARussellPESE 14:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"The only difference is that the sentence implies that the link is about theories of durable and widespread life forms, and not that it is evidence of life on each and every planet."

I think it's still implying that indirectly.

The only way a future discovery could vindicate the interpretation of creatures as living things is if the future discovery implied that that interpretation is true. The interpretation could only be true if there is life on each and every planet.

If the future discovery merely showed life to be very common, it would not vindicate that interpretation. Ken Arromdee 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Future discoveries are likely only vindicate "lots and lots" of places. Scientific discoveries would, in my opinion, need to be quite sweeping indeed to vindicate, once and for all, "life everywhere."

But the phrase, as presented, is a well-qualified one in that: "Bahá'ís could point to the possibility of future discoveries ..." Not all Bahá'ís do point to these possible future discoveries as vindication of an "life on each and every" reading. The phrasing neither points to a certainty, or even necessarily the expectation, that such future discoveries are bound or destined to occur.

While the phrase may imply indirectly the "each and every" reading will be borne out, it doesn't explicitly state the it will, in fact, be. Ken, I think you might cutting it a little fine here. I'm not comfortable spiking a qualified phrase that states that scientific understanding may someday expand and find that "each and every" is true. Science's history is replete with sweeping discoveries indeed, and I've never wanted to shut the door on stating that science "may" vindicate "each and every." I've objected to stating that science "will", but Cuñado's formulation doesn't go there and adds to the depth of the discussion.

Perhaps this:

"Bahá'ís could point out that future discoveries may vindicate the interpretation of creatures as living things, supported by modern evidence and theories of durable and widespread life forms [18], or point to a more broad interpretation..."

MARussellPESE 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they both sound the same, just with different sentence structures. If anything using the word possibility is more indefinite. I'm going to change it, if you think yours is better I have no objections.

Ken, all I can say is, you have really wanted to make the point of science disagreeing with this, so try proposing a re-word of the previous paragraph about current understanding. I can't even think of any other changes to the sentence we're talking about. Cuñado - Talk 18:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer yours; but mine omits "possible" which seems to be sticking for Ken. MARussellPESE 15:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Science's history is replete with sweeping discoveries indeed, and I've never wanted to shut the door on stating that science "may" vindicate "each and every.""

"Each and every" is such an extreme condition that the ways in which science might vindicate it are quite few. Showing panspermia, or showing "durable and widespread life forms" won't do it. Going to a hundred planets and finding life on every single one won't do it. Nothing which just shows that life is very common will do it. About all that will do it is for there to be some super-research-project that travels to every single planet in the universe and says "yup, there are 5 billion planets here and each and every one of them has life on it".

If Baha'is have hope that science will conduct a project of such huge scope someday, fine. Maybe a million years in the future we'll have such advanced technology that we really can check every single planet in the universe for life.

But I wouldn't describe that as "Baha'is could point out that future discoveries might..." Sure, literally speaking it's a future discovery, but most people will take that to refer to discoveries of the kind possible in at most a couple of generations.

If you *really* want to refer to such far future discoveries, you'd have to say something like "Baha'is could point out that if the human race gains godlike power in the future, they could examine every planet and vindicate...." Which is excessively silly. Ken Arromdee 20:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

IIOT

Interesting. From this page, I discern many arguments that could be applied to a write-up about Independent Investigation of the Truth (IIOT), the role of infallibility, and the foundation for a Baha'i Philosophy of Science. jmswtlk 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)