Astrobiology: Is it Relevant For Science?

Biologist and activist Jerry Coyne who has a blog which defends evolution once said, “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.” If that is true, then where does Astrobiology fit into this created pecking order? Back in 1996,  a Martian meteorite was discovered and there was massive hype that it contain alien life forms which were supposedly fossilized in it. But later these claims were debunked. So with all the hype about the meteorite, then President Clinton allocated funding for a supposed new science which is, Astrobiology, however, since fossilized alien life forms from Mars was falsified, wouldn’t you think this part of NASA research would no longer be needed? After all that was the reason why it was created in the first place!

Recently, the United States government has created objectives for Astrobiology and has asked the public to give their opinions on the direction they want Astrobiology to go. Here is what NASA outlines as a road map…

1) Understanding habitable environments 

2) Looking for life in our own solar system (NASA is currently doing this already with Mars). 

3) Understanding life in earth’s environment. 

4) Understanding how life began.

5) Understanding evolutionary mechanisms and environmental limits of life.

6) Predicting how life will shape up for the future.

7) Being able to detect signatures of life forms on other planets. 

Much of these objectives are conducted in other areas of evolutionary research or could be done in other areas of evolutionary research. After seventeen years and counting, there is no hard evidence for alien life forms. Scientists can’t send probes and spaceships which can land on the surface on other worlds outside our solar-system which is the best form of collecting data to draw conclusions with.

Since there is no hard evidence for alien life forms, and we are too far to really investigate, how do they even know what an alien life form would be? It’s like telling a four-year old child living in a remote area in Alaska to be able to come up with calculations for building the Sears tower in Chicago. But some scientists assume (using circular reasoning) that they know what supposed alien life is by studying life on earth…

In Science Daily…

“The bacterium offers clues about some of the necessary preconditions for microbial life on both the Saturn moon Enceladus and Mars, where similar briny subzero conditions are thought to exist.”

“We believe that this bacterium lives in very thin veins of very salty water found within the frozen permafrost on Ellesmere Island,” explains Whyte. “The salt in the permafrost brine veins keeps the water from freezing at the ambient permafrost temperature (~-16ºC), creating a habitable but very harsh environment. It’s not the easiest place to survive but this organism is capable of remaining active (i.e. breathing) to at least -25ºC in permafrost.”

Bacteria is the most fit animal on planet earth and is known to survive in very extreme environments that no other animals could survive in which defies evolutionary logic on survival of the fittest. Is alien bacteria going to be the similar as earth’s or different? If aliens did exist, I would say, different. The discovery of this particular one-cell animal is exciting no question about it and it’s a great thing to learn about, but promising the public it’s revealing clues on life concerning other planets and moons, is not science but a lot of hype.

And also, the authors of the paper make another unscientific claim that these bacteria just like man are changing the weather pattern on earth…

“The researchers believe however, that such microbes may potentially play a harmful role in extremely cold environments such as the High Arctic by increasing carbon dioxide emissions from the melting permafrost, one of the results of global warming.”

So is astrobiology relevant for science? The answer is no! American taxpayer money is being wasted. It should be abolished and the funding shifted elsewhere that is more important in the peaking order like cancer research,  biomimetics where scientists learn and understand designs found in nature for example…

New search-and-rescue operations are being invented some of which are coming from ants! Fire ants that are able to construct narrow tunnels not much wider than their own bodies, the design of these unique tunnels allow the ants to catch themselves to prevent falling in vertical orientations is being studied for the purpose of imitating it for search-and-rescue operations! There is so much in nature that can improve human lives unlike astrobiology were Americans are paying scientists to speculate which is another reason why it’s not relevant for science!

Atheist Jerry Coyne Is Condescending Once Again

Johns Hopkins University decided to invite Ben Carson to speak at their 2013 graduation.ceremony. Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon who attended Johns Hopkins University. He also happens to be a creationist who is against gay marriage. There was an uproar from the gay community about Carson’s stance against gay marriage, so he withdrew which was a mistake.

Instead, he accepted an invite at another university. There were no gay groups protesting at this one, but evolutionists were not happy about it. Namely Jerry Coyne and others. Coyne writes…

“Yes, Carson worked his way up from a horrible background (raised in Detroit by a single mom) to a position of prestige and accomplishment, and yes, he’s been a role model to black students.  But none of that, to my mind, outweighs his profoundly creationist views.  He certainly shouldn’t be barred from speaking because of his faith, but the officials who pick commencement speakers should have excluded him because his view of science, based on lies, is hardly exemplary of an institution devoted to learning.  Truth outweighs inspiration.”  

He shouldn’t be barred but just have excluded him? What Jerry Coyne is advocating is restricting freedom of speech because of a difference of opinion about science, he means evolution. Listen, Neurosurgery is a science Mr. Coyne!  Carson has successfully performed surgery on the nervous system and has been good at it without believing in evolution! Neurosurgery has nothing to do with evolution because its operational science. It’s like learning how a car engine works and performing repairs on it, both are intelligently designed!

Here is some of the feedback from Coyne’s choir…

“When a university asks someone with backwards views about science to give a commencement speech, they are tacitly supporting those beliefs even if they are doing so indirectly.

It’s unfortunate as Dr. Carson’s incorrect understanding of biology taints his accomplishments. I’d be uncomfortable if he were my surgeon even though he is accomplished.”

“Isn’t Evolution the basis of all medicine? Infectious diseases are a cat and mouse game of evolution of the pathogen in just a short period of time. How did he pass all of the biology courses required to get into medical school? Did he lie when taking the tests? I’m tired of these religious types in medicine. They are fakes. And I hope he’s not praying before surgery. I want my doctor to be a cocky, arrogant, self-centered prick when he’s operating on my brain. I want him to have absolute confidence in his skills not in some wizard in the sky.”

This guy here thinks a belief in evolution is required to pass biology that is about evolution! Another guy claimed he fixed two of Carson’s “less-than-stellar results” and my question to him would be, “How did you use evolution to correct those results?” And I don’t mean just believing in it, I mean actually using evolutionary theory in surgery situations. They treat evolution like a cult.  And it’s the wrong religion based on stories. The greatest fear they have is creationists having success in the area of science. And if creationists are having success, it’s another blow to their ill conceived reasoning on why everyone should believe in evolution. So they remain condescending towards creationists.

To Students: Evolutionists Bluff In Their Explanation

Eugenie Scott is finally retiring from her long 26 year mission of trying to destroy how science is being taught in the public schools. She was praised by Science Magazine as a crusader focused against “anti-evolution forces.” Which means creationism, intelligent design, or anything else even it’s naturally based (like self-organization which she believes resembles too much to intelligent design) that criticizes or questions Darwinian evolution.

She endorsed her own version of ecumenism between the Bible and evolution, in order to persuade others into her line of thinking including policymakers.  She also endorsed making an example out of those who went against her policy by punishing teachers who taught both sides of evolution (its supposed strengths and factual weaknesses). In other words, treat evolution differently from other scientific theories for the purpose of trying to sway people’s beliefs.

On celebrating the 60th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s elucidation of the DNA molecule, the world’s leading science journal when it comes to evolution, “Nature” rebukes certain scientists and there are a lot of them who are bluffing in their explanations like they have it all figured out within the evolutionary framework!  He writes…

“We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level…Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever.”

One has to applaud Philip Ball who wrote the article on this count, he is telling scientists to be more honest about their findings rather than hype it up with bluffs of knowing it all when in fact they don’t. Another reason for the bluffing going on, is funding. By stating pretensions which makes their work appear more important, they are attempting to sway public opinion and policymakers that their work is worth more funding!

Students should learn how to recognize what they are being fed, and if you are in a public school realize that you will be on unequal footing when it comes to evolution especially if you are a creationist or intelligent design proponent. That teacher could make or break your great or perhaps even your career! You don’t have to go along with his or her views on evolution or science but be respectful! Complete the requirements of the class, and get a good grade!

In Darwinism, it’s self-refuting, what appears to be truth now is most likely false with new discoveries. After 60 years of research of DNA, they still don’t know much about what it does! Let alone try and explain how it supposedly evolved! Learning about DNA for example, is real science which has nothing to do with evolution. Operational science is something you should embrace and feel comfortable about. It’s historical science which is troublesome because of evolution!

It’s faith vs faith. Ask tough questions, be respectful in your challenge to your professor! Learn what you can about the debate between creationism and evolution. Do not accept the idea that natural selection, which is a mindless, random, and purposeless process fulfilling God’s work in creating nature. When you learn more about its weaknesses of evolution, you realize it is not a strong as you were being taught and that is because evolutionists tend to bluff in their explanation!

P.Z. Myers vs Intelligent Design

The spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote a review on a NY Times article concerning some genes in fish which might give evolutionists ideas on how fins turned to feet. This prompted P.Z. Myers who uses evolution often to try and discredit the existence of God and creationism in general to respond to the review. Myers writes…

“Stop, Casey, and think. Here’s this fascinating observation, that we keep finding conserved genes and conserved regulatory regions between mice and fish, which ought to tell you something, and your argument against a specific example is that it isn’t rare? It really tells you something when your critics’ rebuttal to a piece of evidence is that you’ve got so much evidence for your position that they’re tuning out whenever you talk about the detais.”

Here is what Casey Luskin who is the spokesperson for the modern intelligent design movement wrote in his review…

“The real story isn’t quite that interesting. According to the Nature paper, a particular region of DNA associated with a Hox gene cluster in the coelocanth genome showed sequence homology with a stretch of Hox gene-related DNA in tetrapods. Hox genes are known to be widely conserved among vertebrates, so the fact that homology was found between Hox-gene-associated DNA across these organisms isn’t very surprising.”

“The authors aren’t sure exactly what this particular segment of DNA does, though it’s probably a promoter region. In mice the corresponding homologous region is associated with Hox genes that are important for forming the placenta. Ergo, we’ve solved the mystery of how the placenta evolved. Right?”

“Not really. Again, all that was found was a little homologous promoter region in Hox-gene related DNA in these two types of organisms. Given that we don’t even understand exactly what these genes do or how they work, obviously the study offered no discussion of what mutations might have provided an evolutionary advantage.”

“No evolutionary pathway was proposed, or even discussed. So there’s not much meat to this story, other than a nice little region of homology between two shared, functional pieces of Hox-gene-related DNA. But of course, such shared functional DNA could be the result of common design and need not indicate common descent or Darwinian evolution.”

Casey Luskin is correct in this regard, there isn’t much to the discovery. No knowledge on how these genes work or why they work. All this paper claims is “homology” which isn’t hard evidence for evolution. Why? For one, similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related!

Next Myers attacks intelligent design referring to it as “creationism”…

“The Intelligent Design creationist explanation requires that every extant species was specifically and intentionally stocked with a set of genes hand-chosen by a designer. God magically inserted IgM into each vertebrate species, except that he missed the coelacanths, and he magically inserted IgW into each and every shark, ray, coelacanth, and lungfish, but he intentionally left them out of every tetrapod and teleost.” 

Of course the modern intelligent design movement denies any reference to God, because to them that wouldn’t be scientific. But they don’t define what an intelligent agent or agents is, thus anyone guessing what they mean by that would be considered an ad hominem argument. But when you use intelligent agent or agents within your framework in which you call science, it is reasonable to challenge or question who or what that is! Of course Myers assumes its God and labels it creationism because the courts outlawed it being taught in the public schools. Myers then also assumes how a mind (in this case, God) would create nature which is interesting.

Myers uses uniqueness as proof for a creator, because evolution uses “homology” for its framework or another words God wouldn’t have created that way so it was evolution. However, he is wrong! For example, a car company often times uses the same parts in different cars. Does that mean cars are not intelligently designed rather they naturally evolved? No! You can tell that Ford models are similar. The Ford company doesn’t make each model drastically different from other models that it produces in that same year. Conversely, most of the genetic code for all living things is universal, because for one, it indicates a lone designer not many different designers. Also, it has a purpose, this makes the code optimal for protecting against errors!

Here is a challenge for Myers! What scientific research has produced hard evidence that an intelligent designer would only produce each species using totally different parts? Didn’t you believe that creationism couldn’t be tested therefore not a science then how could you come up with such a conclusion on how God would create? Didn’t you believe only evolution could be tested therefore a science? Myers uses evolution exactly like a spiritual cult does in order to try and disprove in what he doesn’t want to believe in, and that is God! This is why his argument is a bluff of complexity rather than logical. Science has not disproved God neither has P.Z Myers version of evolution disproved God!