Evolutionary theory (specifically, the idea that life arose from non-living matter through purely natural, unintelligent causes) is surely the poster child of optimism. Second only to the belief that a goverment can mend all of a society’s ills, little tends to suspend critical thought than the belief that life’s ubiquitous and tenacious nature is evidence that life would almost certainly arise spontaneously given the right conditions. Corrolary to this belief is the almost universal feeling that the conditions for life to exist are in plentiful supply throughout our bleak universe, and that many habitable planets must exist.
Today it has been reported that a ‘Goldilocks’ planet has been found; that is, a planet where conditions are “just right” to support life. Are scientists basing this conclusion on empirical data, or has unbounded evolutionary optimism crept into this latest proclamation by scientific journalism? Has faith in the evolutionary origins of life grown so ardent that scientists are ignoring scientific observations about how the universe functions? Today’s proclamation suggests so. Take a look at the article yourself, and see if you can spot the lapses in scientific reason. Here’s the article:
Goldilocks Planet Found
Here’s a few obvious things the scientists have overlooked in their evolutionary fervor:
1. The planet is locked to its sun. The planet does not spin. There is no daily rotation. One side perpetually faces its sun, while the other side perpetually faces away. A ‘Goldilocks’ planet must possess spin, for several reasons: First, temperature extremes on both the hot side and the cold side will prevent liquid water from stabilizing. All known life is aqueous-based, so as far as we know, liquid water is a must. Second, even if liquid water could exist under a shaded rock near the planet’s thin ring where its perpetual day meets its perpetual night, the water temperature would not likely be a balmy 70 degrees. From what has been scientifically observed about weather, if the planet has an atmosphere, it would be subject to extreme winds unlike any known on earth. The temperature extremes between hot air on the sunny side and cold air on the unlit side would create enormously violent winds that would always be seeking equilibrium, but never finding it. As cool winds rush from the unlit side to the planet’s sunny side, instead of reaching equilibrium, the sun would continue heating the atmosphere and energizing the vicious cycle of weather. Imagine life evolving in a perpetual hurricane, rather than “in some warm little pond” as Darwin envisioned.
2. The planet’s water supply and atmospheric composition are not confirmed to be capable of sustaining life. But we can overlook these small details and perhaps plan an expedition to the planet. Don’t bother packing air bottles – we’re confident that when we arrive, we can open the spaceship door and breathe in the planet’s fresh, life-sustaining air.
A ‘Goldilocks’ planet? Hardly. Were we to visit the planet, we would find it completely uninhabitable from the winds and temperature extremes alone. Yet it is clear that many people are overlooking the facts in favor of science fiction. And it’s not just limited to the scientists who state that developing life would have a number of stable habitats to choose from (hurricaine = “stable”). What is most disturbing is the degree that the average person’s faith in evolution is influenced by these “scientific” articles that are devoid of scientific scepticism. Reader comments on the article’s website reveal that people seriously believe that the planet is habitable. Incredibly, this belief spawned lengthy reader discussions on whether or not we should form expeditions to the planet. One reader even asserts that discovery of life on Mars has been proven – an established scientific fact. And this demonstrates the point perfectly – that what empirical science observes isn’t nearly as important as what people believe that science has observed. So try this next time you talk to an evolutionist. Ask them, “What scientific observational evidence can you give me that proves that life arose without a designer?” (And if they point out the observed similarities in living organisms, just point out the observed similarities in automobiles, and ask if those similarities therefore prove that none of the automobiles had a designer.)
Both the scientist and the unsuspecting public have somehow fallen prey to the evolutionary paradigm, which asserts evolutionary theory (and the assumptions necessary to support it) regardless of what is actually observed. Have these people lost their minds? Or are they simply unwilling victims of unbounded evolutionary optimism?
I enjoyed reading this article. However, my recent reading of “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer convinces me that Markram’s theory (that consciousness is a product of self-organised complexity) is wishful thinking. As Meyer points out, there is a universe of difference between natural patterns and information-bearing (functionally specified) patterns. Markram would be well-served to familiarize himself with Meyer’s arguments. Evolutionists have been trying for decades to explain, through naturalistic mechanisms, the origin of biological information and the brain’s organization. And all such explanations fail. In my opinion they fail because they are based upon a wrong presumption (naturalism). Let’s recognize the brain for what it is: the construct of a mind. The imposition of functionally relevant structure upon matter is the result of engineering. Not chance. Not self-organization. Systems engineers understand that self-organizing systems themselves must be engineered.
Recent Comments