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!

Speculation On Origin Hinders Science

Back in the 1990’s, Dave McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center came out and said, he discovered a meteorite that landed on Earth from Mars which contained something that once lived. The meteorite called Allan Hills 84001 because it was discovered in 1984, in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. The claims by Dave McKay became a subject of controversy as other scientists examined the meteorite and a wealth of scientific papers concluded that non-biological processes could account for what they observed on the rock.

McKay had major hurdles to overcome, even if they discovered bacteria how are going to prove it was from Mars and not Earth? Also, questions arise like, how could organic chemicals have resisted vaporization for 38 million years in a total vacuum and then going through the Earth’s atmosphere? What’s the difference between alien bacteria, and earth’s bacteria? Not long after the published hyped story about the meteorite, the Clinton administration in turn, produced government funding targeted for “Astrobiology” and it’s been a waste a money ever since! Can one tell me what major discovery has improved science with more funding in “Astrobiology?”  

Recently in science daily, we read headlines that go like this…“Untangling Life’s Origins,” an indication it’s a huge mess, so they proposed a big bang for the protein! Well, it is believed among many evolutionists (despite all its problems) that the big band worked in space why not have it work in nature? Despite that idea which is not scientific, complexities of biological functions concerning molecules remain poorly understood among scientists! Shouldn’t evolutionists be waiting on that first before throwing out proposals about origins?

In another article, in space.com, we read…

“Could life have evolved on Mars Before Earth?”

“The discovery that ancient Mars could have supported microbes raises the tantalizing possibility that life may have evolved on the Red Planet before it took root on Earth. New observations by NASA’s Curiosity rover suggest that microbial life could have survived on Mars in the distant past, when the Red Planet was a warmer and wetter place, scientists announced…” 

But where is the microbial? None was discovered! Rather, the story was hyped for a reason and that reason is funding. It is not enough to just explore another planet, they have to come up with some sort of imaginary stories for marketing purposes. Scientists have their own bias, while some argue that science itself is supposed to be based on observations, that are repeated, and demonstrated. These stories about what Curiosity is finding on the plant hinders science!

Evolutionists spend a great deal of time creating study after study then coming up with conclusions that cannot be observed nor verified.  Here is a proposal, get rid of the funding for origins that create nothing more than stories, and shift that funding to where research needs it like studying complexities of biological functions concerning molecules which remain poorly understood! How about using that funding for finding better treatments for cancer? Surely we can find better use for that funding besides using it for hyped up stories about origins!

Comets Delivering Water To Earth?

There are many problems with Astrobiology, in fact one could question its science vitality with the expansion of knowledge. Like in any false religion, they take a particular part of Scripture out of context and then build a whole doctrine around it.  As a result, they invent rescue explanations in order to preserve the doctrine. In Astrobiology, we see that also with the invented notion of  comets at one point in time delivering water to earth.

After many comets falsifying their story, one comet was discovered to have a D/H ratio that closely resembled the oceans on earth. It was hailed as a confirmation on their hypothesis. Astrobiology Magazine writes…

“However, the new results also raise new questions. Until now, scientists assumed that the distance of a body’s origin from the Sun correlated to the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in its water. The farther away this origin lies from the Sun, the larger this ratio should be. With a “birth place” within the Kuiper belt and thus well beyond the orbit of Neptune, Hartley 2, however, seems to violate this rule.”

“Either the comet originated in greater proximity to the Sun than we thought”, says Hartogh, “or the current assumptions on the distribution of deuterium have to be reconsidered.” And maybe Hartley 2 is a so-called Trojan that originated close to Jupiter and could never overcome its gravitational pull.”

While the discovery raises more questions than answers, does one comet among many others confirm their hypothesis? No! Only if you assume it to be true in the first place  then any tiny indication would be a confirmation. And yes, they are also trying to justify using taxpayers money for this particular research in tough economic times. So why are secular scientists searching for water on comets? After all, they reject the Bible that the earth was formed out of water and by water, creating a story that suggests dust baked from the sun clumped together over a massive amount of time that eventually formed the planet.

Then hot lava dominated the surface making it impossible for liquid water to exist. Tests also have been done on the dust story in the lab but those tests have failed to produce evidence for their formation of planets. So what credible evidence is there? None, it’s the only popular story secular scientists have came come up with that avoids special creation.

This is why there is a huge interest among planetary scientists to find water on comets. It needs to show how the earth became habitable for life that doesn’t conflict with its other story. But this discovery of one comet and the belief that comets delivered water to earth does in fact open a can of worms. Planetary scientists have to invent some sort of explanation on how comets were careful enough in not destroying the earth’s atmosphere,  or how oceans remained intact when huge comets hit the earth.

All this speculation doesn’t really expand any knowledge in science. Its not observable (we can go back in time to watch the event happen nor are they any eyewitness reports), its not testable nor repeatable but rather it contains nothing more than mere speculation. One comet certainly out of many doesn’t verify it either.

Astrobiologists Have Yet To Discover Life’s Definition

Alien life is out there, some claim but how?  Astrobiologists are in the process of  trying to figure out what life is in the first place. What a major dilemma this is which has nothing to fall back on because it has no observable current examples of life emerging from nature, nor any life emerging in a lab but yet we find these scientists trying to find supposed alien life forms where some have declared we are not alone, however they really blowing smoke because they have no clue on what to look for.

In a current edition of  Astrobiology which is free for viewing, it focuses on this very problem. David Deamer from UC Santa Cruz, raises a question if it’s even possible to come up with a definition of life. Tirard, Morange and Lazcano put it this way…

“The many attempts made to reduce the nature of living systems to a single living compound imply that life can be so well defined that the exact point at which it started can be established with the sudden appearance of the first replicating molecule,” they said; “On the other hand, if the emergence of life is seen as the stepwise (but not necessarily slow) evolutionary transition between the non-living and the living, then it may be meaningless to draw a strict line between them…“We remain lamentably ignorant about major portions of the processes that preceded life.”

After more than 150 years of research, they are in the dark, but of course keep the faith, someday it will be revealed to them. It’s very evident from their writings, “In this view life would be the “evolutionary outcome of a process and not of a single, fortuitous event.” This contradicts what was said in a previous paragraph where they state, “there is a major distinction between purely physical-chemical evolution and natural selection, which is one of the hallmarks of biology.” The implication here is suggesting a system could reach a certain point where it able to replicate its information thus natural selection wouldn’t be required. Let’s start with some real science that actually makes sense, shall we? David Anderson writes

“The physical world that we live in – is actually mathematical. That is, it can, at many fundamental levels, be described by mathematics. At school most of us probably learnt Newton’s equations. Surely everyone has heard of the most famous and elegant statement of all, about the interchangeability of matter and energy, Einstein’s E = mc². In fact, the whole subject of physics can be thought of in this way: attempting to describe the physical world as a mathematical equation. Physicists all over the world are looking for the “holy grail” of physics: a single equation to describe reality.”

“Hence, whilst mathematics is an abstract pursuit, it is absolutely not an irrelevant abstract pursuit. Mathematics is the “language of physics” – the language of the world we live and move in. This is very interesting, because maths is something that depends on our minds. In the physical world, we can throw a ball into the air. Newton’s motion equations are entirely abstract; you can’t go anywhere in the world and find an his second law, locked up in a cage somewhere: they exist only in the mind of an intelligent being. Nevertheless, those equations elegantly describe what the ball does in the real world.”

For “the atheist mathematician, [he] has to go about his work doing who-knows-what, for reasons who-knows-why” which is a great analogy that sums up exactly whats going on in the world of trying to research evolution, in this case looking for a definition on the origin of life on earth in order to use it for trying to find other life forms on various planets which are extremely limited in observing.

Exploration of space is amazing, more should be done in this area! The Cassini mission is a prime example of collecting a host of great discoveries that have verified biblical creationism but guessing on whether or not there is life on other planets may be interesting for a science fiction movie but falls way short on relevance, the grant money could be used elsewhere.