Archive for the ‘ET Life’ Category
If intelligent design is junk science (as it is so often accused of being), then this absolutely qualifies as junk science: “ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists’ Biological SETI Theory.”
But Mike, it’s peer reviewed.
And it’s junk science.
How do I know?
Look at the abstract to the actual journal article. What you have here is (a) an idea [i.e., a theory] defended by (b) math. In other words, science has added another sacrament to its panspermia religion to keep the blessed Drake Equation company. There is *nothing* repeatable in this “science” and nothing empirical in terms of data. There is nothing to falsify.
Nothing. Zero. Nada.
The article is in essence saying: “Hey, ET DNA may be encoded in our DNA – have an equation” (rim shot).
Like I said, if intelligent design is going to be criticized for the above (it’s non-falsifiable and unrepeatable), this article and theory is the poster child for junk science.
The most hypocritical part of it is that you could just swap in the word “God” here and there in the abstract and defend intelligent design just as unscientifically.
I just read this piece from the space.com website: “Are Earthlings from Mars?” The post begins this way:
It’s possible that the family tree of all life on Earth has its roots on Mars — and a new device could put that theory to the test in a few years, researchers say.
Researchers are developing an instrument that would search through samples of Martian dirt, isolating any genetic material from microbes that might be present — bugs that are living or that died relatively recently, within the last million years or so. Scientists could then use standard biochemical techniques to analyze any resulting genetic sequences, comparing them to what we find on Earth.
Sounds interesting, to say the least, but the MIT researcher working on the device already seems to sense it won’t solve anything when it comes to the panspermia issue. His frank admission: “[I]f we go to Mars and find life that’s related to us, we could have originated on Mars. Or if it started here, it could have been transferred to Mars.” So, in other words, if we find a genetic relationship, we haven’t found in which direction it worked. This is a classic panspermia dilemma. The same presumed mechanisms (e.g., meteorites, solar wind) that could have brought Martian microbes here to kickstart life on earth in the evolutionary model could just have well worked the other way.
But still, it’s a pretty interesting research trajectory.
I just wanted to post a convenient listing of the series Cris Putnam has been posting over on his Logos Apologia blog. The series summarizes a lot of heady material into readable segments:
I saw this essay from TIME Magazine pop up on Twitter today: “Dabbling in Exotheology.” The date of the essay was 1978 (unless that’s a typo). The essay opens with this question: “Can the “image of God” survive in extraterrestrial life?” An understandable one, but an ignorant one, nonetheless. Anyone who has followed my work knows I’ve lectured on this many times. The answer is “yes” (if what is meant is the survival of the doctrine). It’s “no” if what is meant that ET also has this image.
Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not saying TIME is guilty of theological ignorance. The question really is to be expected. The ignorance is to be found among the many millions of Christians and Jews who would be spooked about the confirmation of ET life because they have fundamentally misunderstood the image of God as some sort of (heretofore) human attribute, like intelligence, sentience, speech, etc. This is the way the image gets talked about all the time, but that notion is not at all coherent.
I won’t take the time or space to rehearse the content of my lectures here. The best I can do is the twelve-page essay on the image of God that I recently wrote for a study Bible published by my employer, Logos Bible Software (the article was for the Lexham Bible Dictionary, also our product, but accessible through the study Bible). Look for the section on the meaning of the image. I could have devoted twelve more pages as to why the “traditional” (attribute-based) view undermines a pro-life ethic and fails because of research in fields like artificial intelligence and animal cognition (and the theoretical study of intelligent ET life), but this will have to do. People who have a high view of Scripture and its teaching about how humans are God’s imagers (to know why I use the verbal phrasing, read my essay), an intelligent ET ought not to be any theological threat. And yet it would be, due to theological ignorance.
Jack Brewer of the excellent blog, The UFO Trail, recently interviewed Robbie Graham, who blogs at the fascinating Silver Screen Saucers. The thrust of the interview is that motion pictures and television have far greater potential to influence beliefs about UFOs and the possibility of alien life forms than any hard research aiming for objective, factual analysis. I’d agree. I would encourage all UFO Religions readers to check out the lengthy interview. It’s well worth it. Here are two excerpts:
“Quite simply, when it comes to our understanding of UFO phenomena and our expectations regarding potential extraterrestrial life – make no mistake about it – movies matter… perhaps more even than anything else. As audiences, we should therefore seek to actively engage with Hollywood’s depictions of UFOs and extraterrestrials – to look up from our popcorn once in a while and acknowledge that such phenomena spring first and foremost not from the minds of Hollywood creatives, but from the fabric of our lived historical reality. By more actively engaging with Hollywood’s UFO movies, we enhance our ability to distinguish UFO fact from fantasy, and to more easily identify and understand the political thinking behind instances of government manipulation of UFO-themed entertainment products.”
“A wide variety of individuals, corporations and agencies are clearly competing to influence your beliefs about alleged extraterrestrial visitors, for whatever ultimate reasons. Successfully accomplishing the task has apparently been identified as worthy of substantial amounts of money and sustained effort.”