Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Mechanisms- in context

As with most words mechanism has several meanings. In the context of the ID vs. anti-ID debate, mechanism refers to a way or means of doing something.

For example, in biology the anti-ID mechanism is "culled genetic accidents". In contrast the ID position which posits there was a plan, a structure, a purpose, an intention- IOW some grand (or not so grand) design.

Many of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet used science as a way to understand that design. IOW for those who embrace ID they can only be as scientifically literate as those great scientists. Which is something I would wish on everyone.

OK mechanisms are a way of doing things. We can do things by design or we can do things willy-nilly. Both are mechanisms in this sense- the sense that the word is being used in this debate.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Can Evolutionism be tested? Can it be falsified?

First, by evolutionism I am referring to evolution #6:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Take the bacterial flagellum-

1) How could we test the preimise that it arose via #6?
2) How could we falsify that premise?

Oh, that's right! Dr. Behe has proposed such a test. However there doesn't appear to be anyone who wants to even try.

When Dr Behe brought this up during his testimony in the Dover fiasco, the point went right over the head of the judge. The following is the judge's ruling followed by Dr Behe's response:

As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)).- Judge Jones III

If I conducted such an experiment and no flagellum were evolved, what Darwinist would believe me? What Darwinist would take that as evidence for my claims that Darwinism is wrong and ID is right? As I testified to the Court, Kenneth Miller claimed there was experimental evidence showing that complex biochemical systems could evolve by random mutation and natural selection, and he pointed to the work of Barry Hall on the lac operon. I explained in great detail to the Court why Miller was exaggerating, was incorrect, and made claims that Barry Hall himself never did. However, no Darwinist I am aware of subsequently took Hall’s experiments as evidence against Darwinism. Neither did the Court mention it in its opinion.

The flagellum experiment the Court described above is one that, if successful, would strongly affirm Darwinian claims, and so should have been attempted long ago by one or more of the many, many adherents of Darwinism in the scientific community. That none of them has tried such an experiment, and that similar experiments that were tried on other molecular systems have failed, should count heavily against their theory.
- Dr Behe

Is their any valid research program that could falsify evolutionism?

I say "No". And I will leave it to any readers to demonstrate otherwise.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Greenhouse Gases and the USSC (off topic)

Earlier this year the United States Supreme Court (USSC) ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant.

A couple nights ago I watched Alan Alda on PBS talking about hydrogen fuel cells. I had seen the program before but that was also before the new USSC ruling on greenhouse gases.

Ya see when hydrogen fuel cells create energy the exhaust is water and water vapor.

Wator vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Not only that but it will be added water vapor. IOW the water and water vapor that are exhausted will be added to the existing water and water vapor already here.

We will no longer only be consumers/ recyclers of existing water. We will be producing H2O at a rate dependent on the number of fuel cells operating and their output.

The only way to prevent this would be to extract the hydrogen to be used from water in the first place. However that was not mentioned in the program. So far only alternative methods of getting the hydrogen have been used.

The PBS program also said hydrogen fuel cells produce zero emissions. That just changed with the USSC ruling as water vapor is a greenhouse gas and as such is a pollutant.

In the end if we make the switch to hydrogen fuel cells we can look forward to a warmer and wetter planet. "Waterworld" here we come!

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Real Design vs. Apparent Design

Over in A Thought Provoking ID Proposal, we were clowning around ;) with the notions of design- i.e. real design vs. apparent design.

First I need to clarify/ correct something I stated in that thread:

ID does not have any criteria for determining the design is illusory.

What IDists say is if there is the appearence of design we should be able to investigate further to make a firm determination, i.e. a scientific inference to the best explanation. Designed or not. Agent activity vs. nature, operating freely.

The "design is illusory" label is added only after due diligence. And it could very well be that the "appearance of design" disappears after that investigation. Just like the appearance of magic disappears once you figure out or see how the illusion was performed.

We do have and use tried and true design detection techniques. Archaeologists employ them. Forensic scientists employ them. Fire investigators employ them. SETI employs them.

Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed.-
Pg. 72 of Darwinism, Design and Public Education (bold added)

If something "appears" designed should we be allowed to investigate it further to figure out if it was designed?

If not, why not?

And if someone is just going to say that only appears designed should they have to substantiate that claim, scientifically?

See also- How Archaeologists Detect Design

Monday, April 23, 2007

Your Attention Please- Blog Comments

From this point forward only blog comments that deal with the topic presented in a blog's opening post will be presented*.

The only exceptions may be comments that follow on the heels of remarks made pertaining to the topic that may require clarification.

IOW it is time to scrape the shit from my shoes. And that shit is the off-topic comments that have run rampant on this blog.

Thank you for your cooperation.

*Any comments that expose the dishonesty and/ or stupidity of any anti-IDist or ID critic will be allowed and treated as "on-topic".

Sunday, April 22, 2007

A Thought Provoking ID proposal

With permission from (the) Thought Provoker I have re-posted his ID proposal:

Here is what I would consider the beginnings of a logically consistent ID Proposal. For practical reasons this lacks a lot of detail. It would be more appropriate to call it an outline. Whether an outline or proposal there needs to be a justification for even considering it. Suggesting it is the best explanation available is a subjective opinion and isn't enough justification, IMO. What is needed is a compelling requirement.

ID proponents generally argue that only intelligence can create intelligence without getting too picky about the meaning of the word “intelligence”. Being an electrical engineer, this is the basis for a feedback loop. How do you create a sine wave output? Use a sine wave input and amplify it. Where do you get the input? From the output. It is called an oscillator circuit. Nothing magical or supernatural about it (except, maybe, the AA battery).

However, even an oscillator circuit needs a framework from which to operate. Cosmologists like Steven Hawking make it their calling to model just such a framework. Steven Hawking’s work is freely available via the web and, unlike some other PhD types, he explains both the math and logic in a way that it can be understood and vetted by anyone who wishes to do so. While Steven Hawking isn’t infallible (he famously lost a bet with another physicist), he knows a lot more about cosmology than I do (big understatement).

Here is a link where he explains the concept of time as just another dimension like North/South directions on a globe with the South Pole being the beginning of time and the North Pole being the end of time. Questions about events before the beginning of time are like questions about locations South of the South Pole. Both are paradoxical, but neither requires the supernatural.

I realize some people don’t accept this explanation as the Truth (capital “T”). This is where NOMA (Non-Overlapping_Magisteria) comes in. I have discussed this in other posts here and here. Embracing NOMA means everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and the need for resolving a dispute stops here. Rejecting NOMA results in OMA (Overlapping Magisteria) and a forces a search for a single, mutual OMA Truth. So, without further ado, I boldly use the Hawking Model as my starting point for a proposed, OMA Truth (this ID proposal/outline). I am sure that some will not like this choice. To these people, I suggest they write a beginning to end proposal/outline like this one and allow it to also be vetted publicly.

The Hawking Model includes the multiverse paradigm…
“The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size.… A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse.”

A complaint to this is that the multiverse still doesn’t solve the improbability problem. In other words, why is this universe so lucky. I suggest changing the bubbles analogy to lightening strikes. The only universes that get beyond the recollapse stage are those that can complete the circuit from the beginning to the end of time. Think of the improbability of a lighting striking hitting a specific, small piece of metal out of acres of other targets. However, when that piece of metal is a lighting rod that completes a circuit, the improbable becomes very probable.

I offer this as a reason for a telic universe. The purpose of the universe is to be internally consistent. The universe must do what it needs to complete the consistency circuit from the beginning to the end of time, or it won’t exist. “Retrocausality” is a term that came up in TT. Here is the link to the newspaper article that initiated the discussion. A future state (cause) that completes the consistency circuit will influence the historical time-path (effect) much like a lightening strike steers towards a lightening rod.

This proposed model may help explain why this universe appears finely tuned. It had to be, or it wouldn’t have even started. It may also explain why historical events appear too fortuitous (retrocausality). This still doesn't explain why intelligence is needed as opposed to simply possible.

One trivial answer (and not very believable) is that our SETI activities has provided just the right amount of focused electromagnetic energy to assist in allowing a symmetrical collapse at the end of time. The reason I bring up this silly example is to illustrate that while the universe needs to reach the end of time, intelligent life may not have to. To the contrary, intelligent life may have already outlived its usefulness.

However, there are a few Billion people out there who are predisposed to believe at least some kind of intelligence will exist at the end of time. Let’s call this intelligence an “Intelligent Designer”. This has the effect of elevating the problem. The purpose of intelligent life is to eventually grow into the Intelligent Designer. Now, what is the purpose of the Intelligent Designer? Well, for one, the designer could use retrocausality to create intelligent life. This is the oscillator circuit mentioned earlier. Beyond that, I will just assume an Intelligent Designer would be useful in completing the consistency circuit of the Universe in other ways too.

There are many, many details left out of this presentation. For example, several people insist a lack of progress in the origin of life research and certain features at the molecular level (DNA, proteins, etc) posit some kind of direct intervention of an Intelligent Designer. This proposal/outline is agnostic to these kind of details. Using ID lingo, everything looks designed because everything IS designed. The purpose/design of the universe is to be internally consistent. Does that mean absolutely everything that exists is necessary for that purpose? no. But a sloppy design doesn't mean there is no design.

It could be claimed that this is just a restatement of various Anthropic Principles. I wouldn’t disagree with that and I apologize for not giving all the people who deserve credit their due. I have no interest in claiming this as my idea. My real interest is in getting it presented and observing the reactions. I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Comments and suggestions are also welcome.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Wm. Dembski pre-empts aiguy

Again I refer you to a thread titled Planet of the Intelligent Designers, started by aiguy.

I will also refer you to page 90 of The Design Revolution by Wm. Dembski.

Once suitably programmed, the computer operates by necessity. Consequently, its outputs, when fed into the filter, will land at the necessity node of the filter.

Which pretty much sums up aiguy's argument. Then Wm. follows with:

But whence the computer that runs the program? And whence the program? All computer hardware and software in our ordinary experience is properly referred to not to necissity but to design.

And in the end aiguy still has some strange fixation with the word "intelligent". Unfortunately that may prevent him from ever understanding why his argument is bogus. You first have to understand what it is you are arguing against before you can mount a successful argument against it.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

A 2ndclass Jerkoff

Over on the ARN discussion board ID imbecile aiguy has a thread titled Planet of the Intelligent Designers, in which he finishes his OP with:

In the end, all of ID's claims about detecting intelligent causation that transcends fixed law and chance crumble into dust, for the obvious reason that computers can easily pass ID's tests for intelligent agency.

IOW he is saying that since computers can produce CSI, ID is falsified because he alledges that computers operate purely via fixed law and chance. I guess the operating system and application programs have nothing to do with it.

On Monday (April 9th) another imbecile, 2ndclass, chimed in saying that I have a reading comprehension issue because I stated:

Over on the ARN discussion board there is a discussion about that computers can generate CSI that refutes ID. This “aiguy” is clueless to the fact that the CSI generated by the computer can be traced back to its designers.

This is EXACTLY what IDists have been saying since the 1990's! Read page 92 of Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, first paragraph on that page.

The debate is what nature, operating freely can do-> computer outputs are not in any way, shape or form "nature, operating freely". Nor do computers operate via fixed laws and chance.

Also given the predictions and data presented in "The Privileged Planet" we know that any silcon-based life, ie aiguy's computers, had to have originated from carbon-based organisms. IOW we would know they were artifacts.

2ndclass's confusion is from thinking that CSI is a probability measure and apparently nothing more. He(?) is fixated on that approach.

Good luck with that.

And when nature, operating freely can desig, build, power up and program a computer aiguy will have a point. Until then all he has is a strawman.

Monday, April 02, 2007

"The Privileged Planet"- revisited

In fact, no amount of evidence for apparent design could ever count as evidence of actual design. But if science is a search for the best explanation, based on the actual evidence from the physical world, rather than merely a search for the best materialistic or impersonal explanations of the physical world, how responsible is it to adopt a principle that makes one incapable of seeing an entire class of evidence?- page 270

Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the authors of “The Privileged Planet”, was a (Carl) Sagonite. However the book refutes Sagan.

It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20), that peaked the book’s co-author’s (Jay Richards) interest.

Gonzalez was part of a team of scientists working for NASA on a project trying to determine whether or not there is life “out there”.

At least one peer-reviewed paper (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200) came from that scientific research.

The authors make predictions. For example if/ when we discover other complex life is found elsewhere in the universe, the many factors observed here will also be present there. And that life will be carbon based.

“The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

“The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

“There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

“The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.”
Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

Other G. Gonzalez papers that were the basis of the book (just skimming through the references):
“Stars, Planets, and Metals”, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003)101-120
“Rummaging Through Earth’s Attic for Remains of Ancient Life”, Icarus 160 (2002) 183-196
“Is the Sun Anomalous?”, Astronomy and Geophysics 40, no. 5 (1999):5.25-5.29
“Are Stars with Planets Anomalous?”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 308 (1999): 447-458
“Impact Reseeding During the Late Heavy Bombardment”, Icarus 162 (2003):38-46
“Parent Stars of Extrasolar Planets III: p Cancri Revisited”, Astronomy and Astrophysics 339 (1998): L29-L32
“Stellar Atmospheres of Nearby Young Solar Analogs”, New Astronomy 7 (2002): 211-226

Chapter 16 offers a “Skeptical Rejoinder” answering the following 14 objections:

1) It’s impossible to falsify your argument.

“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”

2) It’s inevitable. Whatever environment we found ourselves in, we would find examples conducive to its measurability.

“…we are able to compare the measurability of our environment with that of other environment. For the discoveries we have made, we can reflect on the conditions necessary for such discoveries, and then compare those conditions with conditions in other settings. For instance, it’s unquestionable that a relatively transparent atmosphere is more conducive to astronomical curiosity and discovery than is a murky (translucent) or opaque one. We know that, at least in our Solar System, such an atmosphere is rare.”

3) Well, then, it’s just a selection effect of a different sort. There are phenomena we cannot observe and measure. The argument is biased toward measurable phenomena.

“Contrary to the claims of the anti-realist, who doubts the existence of external truth, scientists aren’t locked in a Kantian box where everything we perceive in the universe is primarily the product of our perception. There are many things we have difficulty measuring, and we realize that fact. For instance, we can’t determine the distance and properties of some astronomical objects. But we know they exist, since we can detect them either directly or indirectly, and we know that we don’t know their distances or many of their intrinsic properties. We can compare the objects in this category with the objects we can both detect and measure, and make generalizations about our ability to measure generally.
Similarly, we are not so bereft of imagination that we can conceive only of those things we directly perceive. If nature is regular in its operation, which we have every reason to believe, then we have some justification for extrapolating what we don’t see from what we do see. Theory often predicts the existence of certain objects prior to their discovery, such as additional planets, white dwarfs, black holes, the cosmic background radiation, and neutrinos. For fairly secure theories, we can imagine what conditions would allow us to detect such objects. We can then determine whether our environment allows us to do so and compare it with other settings in the universe. And this has happened numerous times in the past. It is striking how often physicists are able to detect entities that are initially predicted for theoretical reasons.”

4) You’re cherry-picking. You have used a biased sample to argue for correlation.

“This is always a danger with any general hypothesis like the one we’re proposing. When a theorist is looking over a large body of data, it’s always possible that he will pick out the pieces that form an intriguing pattern and ignore the pieces that don’t. As a result, when the data are considered in their entirety, the pattern dissolves. Any argument involving many different scientific disciplines is especially susceptible to such a danger, since it’s impossible to consider every piece of relevant data.
For this reason, we have intentionally chosen important examples from each of the scientific disciplines we’ve considered. We haven’t chosen obscure experiments or conditions of measurability that have little importance for science. For instance, it’s difficult to overestimate the importance of a transparent atmosphere and visible stars for astronomy, or sedimentary processes for geology. Any astrophysicist would admit the historical importance of perfect solar eclipses in the development of stellar physics. No cosmologist would deny the importance of detecting redshift of distant galaxies, or the cosmic background radiation for our knowledge of the history of the universe. Moreover, as we noted in the previous chapter, other scientists have noticed evidence of the correlation, although none have developed the argument as we have. This makes it less likely that we’re creating the correlation out of thin air.
This is an important objection nevertheless, because it would be one way to falsify the claim that there is a correlation between habitability and measurability. If our hypothesis is correct, the correlation will continue to be confirmed not only in areas we have considered but also in areas we haven’t considered. We are convinced that there are still many important discoveries awaiting us- some we can anticipate, some we cannot. At the risk of being wrong, we would be willing to predict that an identifiable subset of gamma ray bursts will one day be found to be useful standard candles. The only reason we have for predicting this is that if the correlation is real, gamma ray bursts would be prime candidates for helping us measure the universe. Perhaps they will allow tomorrow’s astronomers to probe even greater redshifts than we can with Type Ia supernovae today.
Another such prediction concerns evidence of early life. As we mentioned in Chapter Three, Earth’s geophysical processes have erased much of the early history of life. If measurability and discoverability are optimized from our vantage point, however, then we might expect that such information will be preserved somewhere accessible to us. The origin of life is a particularly important question. It would be surprising, assuming the correlation, if it could not be investigated. In fact, we might predict that such evidence is available somewhere, if we search diligently enough. It was precisely this prediction that led one of us (Guillermo) to consider the value of lunar exploration for uncovering relatively well-preserved relics of Earthly life from this early period. Finally, we’re willing to predict that since carbon and oxygen appear so often among our examples of measurability, they will be central characters in future discoveries as well.
Of course, if we’re right about these predictions, this would not prove our position but only further support it. If we’re wrong, conversely, it would not destroy our argument but would put a dent in it. But clearly our argument has a predictive dimension. In contrast, the Copernican and Anthropic Principles in their most unrestrained manifestations seem much less useful. Positing the existence of multiple universes, for instance, doesn’t offer many fecund research programs within our universe. It looks designed primarily to foreclose certain unwelcome metaphysical possibilities.”

5) Your argument is too speculative. It is based on guesses and a thin empirical base.

“Most of the examples we have selected are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence. Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the Solar System, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy. Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid acquisition of knowledge in certain fields. This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology. But even in these examples our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.
Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. Thus, our discussion of the Circumstellar Habitable Zone, and all the factors that go into defining it, contain speculative elements, as does our discussion of the Galactic Habitable Zone. While we can’t yet estimate the precise boundaries of these habitable zones, present published studies are almost certainly missing many relevant factors, which, when eventually included, will reduce their sizes, and strengthen our argument. Notice, again, we are going out on a limb here and making predictions, which makes our argument vulnerable to future discoveries.”

6) Your argument is too subjective. It lacks the quantitative precision necessary to make a convincing case.

7) How can you have a correlation with a sample size of one?

“While it is true that Earth is the only example we have of a habitable planet, this does not prevent us from finding a correlation between habitability and measurability. First, our argument is not based merely on the particulars of our home planet and the life we know about. We have argued that life in the universe will almost surely resemble life on Earth, at least at the biochemical level, and a planet very much like ours is probably required for technological life. Starting with these basics, we have used knowledge from a broad range of disciplines to consider a broad range of environments. Discovering a correlation between habitability and measurability, then, is based on our knowledge, not our ignorance.
For example, with knowledge of stellar astrophysics and climatology, we cab ask whether a planet around an M dwarf is more or less habitable and offers more or less opportunity for discovery than Earth. Similarly, with our knowledge of galactic astronomy, we can ask how position in the Milky Way affects habitability and the measurability of the local and distant universe.”

And while Earth is the only habitable planet there are 9 planets and many moons that we can use for local comparisons

8) Since life needs complexity, the correlation is trivial. The greater the complexity, the greater the chance for a correlation between habitability and measurability.

9) There may be separate pathways significantly different from ours leading to equally habitable environments.

10) Your argument is bad for science because it encourages skepticism about cosmology.

11) General Relativity appears to be a superfluous law of nature, which is not obviously required for habitability. Yet it is an important part of science. Does this not contradict the correlation?

12) The correlation isn’t mystical or supernatural, since it’s the result of natural processes.

13) You haven’t really challenged naturalism. You’ve just challenged the idea that nature doesn’t exhibit purpose or design.

14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist.

“This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.”

Well, yeah…


Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
50% of those are in binary systems
Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone

Earth-like planets:

We now know that our solar system is not typical
We do know other planets exist
At least 4% of Sun-like stars have giant planets at least as massive as Jupiter.

Then we have the factors required for a planet to host complex life-

Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone
Liquid water
Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star
Protected by gas giants
Nearly circular orbit-
Oxygen rich
Correct mass
Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation
Moderate rate of rotation
Terrestrial planet
Ratio of water to continents
Plate tectonic re-cycling
Magnetic field
Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.
The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.