Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It Takes Great Faith to Be an Astrobiologist
Evolution News and Views ^ | January 22, 2015 | News

Posted on 01/22/2015 6:23:46 AM PST by Heartlander

It Takes Great Faith to Be an Astrobiologist

Evolution News & Views January 22, 2015 4:28 AM | Permalink

NASA's Astrobiology Magazine, funded with taxpayer dollars, illustrates the mystical view -- what else to call it? -- of nature in the astrobiologist community. In Elizabeth Howell's article, "How the Code of Life Passed Through Primitive Kinds of Cells," we see Harold Fellerman of the University of Denmark showing his mystical streak:

"I'm very interested in the creative potential of nature," he said. "Nature in general seems to be fertile with creativity that outperforms any human imagination. We find solutions to problems in nature that no engineer would envision." [Emphasis added.]

The statement is hardly distinguishable from animism. To see why, we need to nail down some rules. These rules should be uncontroversial to any modern scientist, because they follow logically from naturalism.

  1. "Nature" to a materialist has no spirit, imagination, or goal.

  2. Inanimate matter has no "desire" to become animate; vitalism is out.

  3. "Building blocks of life" have no obligation or desire to assemble into a living thing.

  4. A lucky accident in one part of the origin-of-life scenario has no obligation or desire to join forces with another lucky accident somewhere else.

  5. A random chain of building blocks is not "information" in a biological sense, nor is a "pattern" of building blocks, nor are copies of a random chain or a pattern.

  6. Investigators are not allowed to interfere with natural processes in origin-of-life scenarios, because this sneaks information into the system.

  7. Wishful thinking is not science. One needs evidence. Putting the evidence into the future, "i.e., further research is needed," is a cop-out.

  8. The complex functions of living cells cannot be used to infer origins in inanimate matter without begging the question raised by Rules 2 and 3.

Go ahead and call foul any time someone violates one of these rules in Howell's story:

You get the idea. Check the rest of the article by the rules as an exercise in critical thinking. So what remains after the violations are stricken? Essentially, nothing. There is hardly a sentence in this article that does not violate one or more rules.

This stripped-down remainder is sheer mysticism, as expressed in the Fellerman quote:

"I'm very interested in the creative potential of nature," he said. "Nature in general seems to be fertile with creativity that outperforms any human imagination. We find solutions to problems in nature that no engineer would envision."

It takes great faith to be an astrobiologist.



TOPICS: Education; Science
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 01/22/2015 6:23:46 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

I have absolutely no doubt that there are life-supporting planets among the billions of billions of billions of stars in the universe, but the closest one is so many millions of light years away that it is irrelevant.


2 posted on 01/22/2015 6:28:48 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Offend a Christian and he is obliged to pray for you. Offend a Muslim and he is obliged to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Straw-man argument. Some of those “rules” are simply wrong.


3 posted on 01/22/2015 7:08:45 AM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

The most “simple” single-celled organism is far too stupendously complex to have “evolved” via random processes. Yet they have unshakable faith in such abiogenesis, “spontaneous generation,” life from lifeless chemicals, something Pasteur disproved a long time ago.

They need to throw lifeless chemicals together and create a “simple” single-celled organism, complete with DNA, etc., and get back with us. Until then, until they perform this laughable impossibility, theirs are just as much faith-based beliefs as Christian’s beliefs are.


4 posted on 01/22/2015 8:19:29 AM PST by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

Please elaborate. Evolution is supposedly random therefore it is incumbent that science prove evolution primarily through observations rather than laboratory experiments which introduce knowledge rather than mimic nature. Of course, in today’s bizzarro world ymmv.


5 posted on 01/22/2015 9:38:55 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Astrobiology: still the only science with zero data.


6 posted on 01/22/2015 10:18:14 AM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6
Astrobiology: still the only science with zero data.

Nonsense:


7 posted on 01/22/2015 10:24:30 AM PST by NorthMountain (No longer TEA Party ... I'm the TAF Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: afsnco

Anyone who insists that “simple” life was what we “evolved” from should be required to build one themselves.

Surely if it can happen randomly, some “scientist” could easily create it on purpose.


8 posted on 01/22/2015 10:27:10 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Barry needs some specs.


9 posted on 01/22/2015 10:27:28 AM PST by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6
I've watched enough science fiction to know exactly what happens when "the creature" opens its mouth that wide!
10 posted on 01/22/2015 10:30:12 AM PST by NorthMountain (No longer TEA Party ... I'm the TAF Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson