As a technical achievement, NASA’s current mission to Mars is staggering. The astonishing complexity of the landing and the successful deployment of the roving robot with its powerful cameras are astounding, no doubt about it. Clearly, at this stage, it’s too early to speak of success or otherwise. However, we can still ask, ‘what are the key beliefs underlying this search?’ At its most basic level, is this a probe looking for other intelligent life forms, and if so, is that search justified?
OTHER FORMS OF LIFE?
If you believe in an unplanned and wholly fortuitous ‘Big Bang’ of the origin of the universe and a single origin of life that has tortuously evolved to where we are today, then you may have a keen interest in seeing if there are other forms of life in other parts of the cosmos. And perhaps this curiosity is in part driven by a cosmic loneliness, a sense of our smallness and apparent insignificance and how many find the thought comforting to seek support for the theory of biological evolution.
So we have the popular idea that if life can start spontaneously, given the right conditions, then it would be wonderful confirmation if it happened somewhere else. It could also, as a spin-off, support contemporary atheism. Yes, I can see how all of this can be very appealing, given the beliefs and assumptions in the first place.
OPTIMISM LEAP
I also see a problem, a big one. The human mind is so vast in terms of its sheer, bewildering, and puzzling complexity that to believe that our profound rationality arose through natural selective advantage is not evidence-based science, but rather a huge irrational leap of optimism.
What people forget is that it is not possible to live and think consistently strictly on the basis of philosophical naturalism, the belief that physical and natural reality is all there is, because there is already more to us than can be explained on that basis. base.
MINDS ARE MORE THAN MOLECULES!
If we were just a complex conglomeration of molecules, we would have no basis for why our reason believes the universe is understandable, and we are significant personal beings in it, because information capable of being decoded could not simply be embedded in a universe. ultimately meaningless. mass of matter. Also, where does objectivity come from, who decides? But then to ask questions, suppose there are answers, like, ‘Am I a zero, a total nonentity, or do I have any meaning and importance, I mean real importance, where will this information come from? ‘ Not from other molecules. Can complex collections of matter confer some kind of ultimate objectivity on other collections of matter? I do not think so
NARROW VISION
Well, I guess you know why the reason behind the mission to Mars is a case of myopia: myopia, or nearsightedness in a metaphorical sense; a point of view that does not consider anything outside a very narrow field of vision. I’ll tell you why: naturalistic philosophy and secular humanism is the main ideological base that NASA takes for granted. But NASA (and it is by no means alone) continues to borrow a conceptual framework inherited from Christian theism from which evidence-based science, in an understandable universe, emerged in the 17th century. This is clear from a study of the historical roots of early modern science, and how superstitious ideas were eliminated, not by denying biblical creationism, but by accepting the simple reality that the living God has imbued reality with profound understanding. , which includes the transcendent. validity of our reason; that is, a validity that cannot be explained by the neo-Darwinian theory, that is trapped in doubt because it lacks a sufficient basis for trusting the validity of a reason merely inherited from other animals, and undermines its own theory. Did you learn about truth and honesty in handling data from a meaningless evolving cosmos, or from our humanity made in the moral and rational likeness of the God who made all things?
FINDINGS ARE INTERPRETED IN A FRAMEWORK
If NASA finds intelligent life on Mars or elsewhere, it will interpret its findings through the lens of its naturalistic ideology and assume it happened by chance, with no ultimate meaning other than confirming its own belief. Will that confirmation be evidence-based science? No, it will simply be a conclusion based on an interpretation, which he believes is consistent with his ideological brand of science, while all the while denying the biblical theistic foundation that gave us objective and meaningful science in the first place.
That’s what I mean by ‘nearsightedness’, a point of view so restricted that you can’t see anything outside of a narrow field of vision, or even more so, a huge blind spot that isn’t prepared to see that the majesty of the night sky it is a silent pointer to the greater majesty of the One who made all things – the Creator who became the Redeemer! And if you thought biblical Christians were narrow-minded, maybe it’s time to consider how firmly the boot is on the other foot.
