A couple of months ago, NASA made a big deal about several new discoveries. In December, the Associated Press reported: “Evidence of aliens is mounting daily.” (Hmm: not annually, monthly, or even weekly, but daily.) As you can probably guess by now, the “evidence of aliens” was again complete nonsense. It consisted of three discoveries:
The first was “an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.” The announcement helpfully explained that ‘astrobiology’ is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe. Researchers had found some unusual bacteria. So where were the unusual bacteria found? On Mars? On a moon of Jupiter? Maybe on a moon of Saturn? None of the above. The bacteria were found in a lake in California. So how was this ‘evidence’ for astrobiology?
Supposedly, the bacteria had DNA biochemistry based on arsenic instead of phosphorus. This showed that bacteria could survive in places that were previously thought too hostile for life. According to NASA, this is evidence that will impact the search for aliens.
The media backlash was immediate. Many commentators [and scientists] were stunned at how ridiculous this claim was, and how NASA had created such a fuss over some germs in California. Then the story got even better. The research itself turned out to be horribly flawed. The bacteria didn’t necessarily have arsenic in their DNA. Turns out the researchers had failed to take some basic precautions in the laboratory when working with them. The sad part is that the NASA researchers still insisted that their study was valid, even after all the fatal flaws were pointed out. Like so many other evolutionists, these researchers are so desperate to find life elsewhere that they’re blinded to the flaws.
The second discovery of a potentially habitable planet around a far-away star didn’t support alien life either. Even if this new planet were in the habitable zone around its star (which isn’t certain), the star in question is a red dwarf. Red dwarfs are dim, with low energy output. To be warm enough to be habitable, planets have to orbit them closely. But red dwarfs are unstable and flare frequently. Large flares will fry the closely-orbiting planets. Thus, the so-called “habitable zone” isn’t so habitable after all.
The third discovery was that there are a lot more stars than previously thought – up to three times more. Thus, there might be lots more planets. Thus, this is evidence of alien life. (Don’t you love the ‘logic’ here?) There’s a big problem, though. The new stars, if they actually exist, would be red dwarfs. (That’s why they were previously unknown – because red dwarfs are dim and hard to spot.) And as we just saw, red dwarf systems are not places you want to live in. We see then that the claimed ‘daily’ new evidence for aliens is complete rubbish.
Question: why are the media so eager to run absurd stories like this? Why are even NASA scientists publishing wild tales about California germs being ‘evidence’ for life elsewhere? It’s because of evolutionary thinking. As I said earlier, most evolutionists are desperate to find life outside of the Earth. After all, if you believe that there was no Creator who made us, then obviously we must have evolved from earlier forms of life. Life must have formed by natural processes and, if it formed here, then it must have formed somewhere else too. If we find it elsewhere, that would ‘prove’ that it formed here and would prove that evolution is true and creation is false.
New question: How many logical fallacies can you find in that chain of reasoning?
[Editor’s note: This article is abridged from Spike’s newsletter, CREATION ASTRONOMY NEWS, Volume II, #1. Used by permission. Request Spike’s newsletter at: firstname.lastname@example.org or visit his developing website: www.CreationAstronomy.com]
This was published as an article in the May/June 2011 Think and Believe.
Please call our office or email us at email@example.com for additional resources on these subjects.