It so boring to write again and again: "As usual, Mark is correct n/t" (even though most of the time Mark is correct).

Mark and I seldom disagree but this is something that Mark and I have argued about before, namely exobiology. I think current day exobiology is a load of manure, this includes SETI but my real beef is against Martian exobiology. Before I dive in, I need to make the standard disclaimer: I do believe that life is common in the galaxy but also believe in the Rare Earth Hypothesis (note the operative word "believe" as in "I have faith that..."). This disclaimer is necessary because (unfortunately) there is this lunatic fringe of Christian fundamentalists that have this mixed up notion that life can only exist on the Earth because the Bible says so.

As I read Michael Chrichton's lecture, I was saying "Right on!" again and again. Michael Chrichton was quite correct in his criticism of the Drake Equation. It's rubbish! Most of the terms are unknown and possibly unknowable. Mark said that "SETI is testable". Yeah, that's sort of like saying "life after death" is testable. If the ghost of Abraham Lincoln appeared before me and correctly anwered several trick questions about the Civil War then that might provide evidence for life after death. However this might also provide evidence that I've lost my mind and having hallucinations. There is no verifiable evidence for the existance of ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (ETI) or even nonterrestiral life. No verified radio signals from ETI have been received and more importantly, no ETI artifacts have ever been found. The belief in SETI is just that, "belief" and nothing more. I consider Carl Sagan to be one of the most over-rated scientists of the 20th century. Sagan tarnished the reputation of science through his public promotion of SETI and nuclear winter. I was very pleased that Chrichton reminded his audience of Sagan's misbehavior. I was also happy about how Chrichton brought up the disgraceful behavior of the scientific establishment against the environmental skeptic, Bjorn Lomborgof.

Advocacy of a predefined political agenda through the selective use of scientific information has tarnished the reputation of science. I recommend a complete reading of Crhichton's lecture through the link that Mark so kindly provided. Form your own opinon.

Gary