Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design Naturalism Origin Of Life science education

NASA stresses naturalist origin of life to kids

Spread the love

In connection with the landing of the Perseverance Rover:

An eight-year-old student named Sai asks if aliens want to contact us. Jacco van Loon, astrophysicist and Director of Keele Observatory steps up to the microphone in the “Curious Kids” service of The Conversation to give the official Darwinian answer. He admits that nobody knows what aliens are thinking, but he never questions the existence of aliens, and why they must be there.

“The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist. Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.” …

“On Earth this transformation seems to have taken place quite suddenly some 700 million years ago. At that time the Earth was already almost 4 billion years old, and had been inhabited by simple lifeforms such as bacteria for much of that time. Why did it not happen sooner? And what made it happen? Until we find the answers to those questions we cannot tell how likely it is that it also occurred elsewhere.”

It is fallacious to build a case on an example of one. van Loon speculates that since humans are curious and want companionship, aliens probably want that, too.

David F. Coppedge, “NASA Indoctrinates Kids to Expect Aliens” at Creation-Evolution Headlines

Aliens are fun but, for all practical purposes, they’re fiction. At Mind Matters News, we do Sci-fi Saturday under an Arts & Culture head. In the real world, we will be lucky to find a fossil bacterium on Mars. It’ll be colossal news and for a while people will forget about the fantasy space aliens.

But in the meantime, if NASA is going to market vast materialist claims for how evolution happens, it’s only fair to ask for equal time for ID.

Here’s the landing:

23 Replies to “NASA stresses naturalist origin of life to kids

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    NASA guys should watch Dr. Tour latest series of lectures on the origin of life. If, after that, they still BELIEVE in naturalist origin of life (no intelligence involved), they should see a doctor (a shrink).

    Dr. Tour did a great job. Now, even a lay person can see that Darwinists believe in miracles … a miracle after a miracle after a miracle … that is Darwinism …

    Here is the pilot episode:

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The examples above are neutral and factual, not naturalist or anti-religion. Maybe he was also saying some pure Darwin crap, but these answers aren’t in that category.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Aliens are not fiction. Just because you refuse to read or understand the evidence doesn’t mean anything to those who have and can.

  4. 4

    NASA talks big about the “Settled Science” when it helps their ideological agenda

    But just what is Settled Science?
    A scientific law is considered settled when it: 1)is supported by a large amount of empirical evidence, 2) when it’s falsifiable in principle, 3 but has never been falsified in practice.

    An example is the First Law of Thermodynamics. “Energy is never created nor destroyed”

    Another example is the Creationist Law of Abiogenesis
    “Absent Divine intervention, life comes only from life.

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    ET: Aliens are not fiction. Just because you refuse to read or understand the evidence doesn’t mean anything to those who have and can.

    Denyse (News) might be a bit offended by your comment.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Given Intelligent Design it is also a given that we are not alone in the universe. Meaning there are others out there living on other planets.

    Even the Bible reads like a who’s who of UFOlogy

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    “Even the Bible reads like a who’s who of UFOlogy“

    Could you please elaborate
    Given atheists often claim aliens run Contrary to the Bible

  8. 8
  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    But in the meantime, if NASA is going to market vast materialist claims for how evolution happens, it’s only fair to ask for equal time for ID.

    I would imagine that, given the prevalence of religious belief in this country, the kids are already getting that at home. Compared to that, NASA’s influence is going to be minimal.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Only desperate fools try to link ID with religion.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    Do you mean, ET, like writing a book called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology?

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- ID doesn’t say anything about worship. Nothing about the who, how and why to worship. ID doesn’t say anything about service. ID doesn’t say anything about praying. ID doesn’t even require God.
    “The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:

    Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.

    He goes on to say:

    Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn’t even require there be a God.

    In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:

    First, by any reasonable definition of the term, intelligent design is not “religion”.- page 441 under the heading Not Religion

    He goes on say pretty much the same thing I have been saying for years- ID doesn’t say anything about worship- nothing about who, how, why, when, where to worship- nothing about any service- nothing about any faith nor beliefs except the belief we (humans) can properly assess evidence and data and properly process information. After all the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

  13. 13
    Concealed Citizen says:

    Bob O’Hara makes me giggle.

    He’s desperate to link ID with religion. As if that’s some sort of invalidator.

    But, deniers will be deniers.

    Can’t help that.

  14. 14
    asauber says:

    Atheists link Evolution and Religion when they present arguments like:

    An all-seeing God wouldn’t do X
    An all-loving God wouldn’t permit evil x
    An all-knowing God wouldn’t design x this way

    These are all IF HE EXISTED positions which imagine God.

    Which defeats the silly notion that God is not possible. He’s absolutely possible. It’s atheism that’s not possible.


  15. 15
    asauber says:

    So when I Google ‘Atheism’ I’m struck by each source’s definition of it containing the word ‘belief’.

    Why would a scientific-minded person be ruled by a ‘belief’?


  16. 16
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 12 – I guess irrelevance is the best you’ve got. Describing ID as the “bridge between science & theology” seems like a pretty clear attempt to try to link ID with religion. As does writing “Intelligent Design has theological implications”. There may not be a necessary link, but Dembski himself clearly thinks there is a link. I don’t know him well enough to know whether he is a “desperate fool”.

    Concealed Citizen @ 13 – I’m not Dr. Dembski. I was pointing out that he, not me, has pointed to links between ID and religion.

  17. 17
    Concealed Citizen says:

    Bob O’H:

    Everyone makes mistakes

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Wow. How is it irrelevant to show that ID is not religion to refute the claim that ID is linked to religion? Having theological implications isn’t a link. Just like the atheistic implications of evolutionism doesn’t make evolutionism an atheistic concept.

    So go ahead, tell us of this link between ID and religion. Tell us what ID says about worship, service, the afterlife- anything to do with any religion.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    Let’s say the Mars rover discovers what appears to be an ancient carved monument. What’s your reaction?

    A. That can’t be an intelligently designed monument because theists will then use it as an argument for God.

    B. That’s not a carved monument, it’s the product of differential erosion. It’s like finding the image of Elvis Presley on a piece of burned toast.

    C. It’s a secret Nazi base.

    D. Oh, it looks like humans were here before us (aliens being overwhelmingly unlikely to be present in our solar system).

    E. It’s aliens, it’s aliens! See, that disproves God.

    F. Hmm. Very interesting.


  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    ET –

    How is it irrelevant to show that ID is not religion to refute the claim that ID is linked to religion?

    Because something can be linked to something else without being that other thing. We are both linked to the Uncommon Descent webpage because we both comment here. But we are not the webpage, or part of the organisation that runs it.

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    Here are my thoughts on religion and ID.

    The implications of ID are that there is a vast intelligence that directed the creation of the universe. That creator has over the period of tens of thousands of years been called a god by a large percentage of the human population. Maybe longer since we do not know what the hunter-gathers believed.

    ID also points to a large intelligence that created life but this intelligence does not have to be this god that created the universe. Many assume it is the same intelligence. ID doesn’t.

    ID also points to a large intelligence that guided life since it first appeared over 4 billion years ago but this intelligence does not have to be this god that created the universe or the intelligence that created life. Many assume it is the same intelligence. ID doesn’t.

    Religion means that a particular superior intelligence wants interactions with the sentient beings in this creation no matter how they originated. Religion in the usual sense includes things like worship but that need not be a necessity. For example, is Deism which is just an acknowledgement that a creator exists a religion? There is no form of worship there except maybe awe by many.

    ID has nothing to say about what relationships there are between the sentient creation and the intelligence responsible for these three levels of creation which could all originate from 3 separate intelligences or the same intelligence. Only that it is highly likely they exist or did exist at some time.

    Have some made many of the findings of ID part of a religious experience. Most definitely but that does not mean ID is a religion or points to a specific religion just as logic is not a religion or points to a specific religion.

    Now given all this, NASA is lying to kids. A naturalistic origin for the universe, life or advanced life is extremely unlikely given our current knowledge. But there definitely could be other sentient beings in the universe. ID says nothing about that except Earth is rare and most likely guided into existence but so could other worlds come under such guidance.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    OK, Bob O’H. There isn’t any link that ID pertains to any religion. There isn’t any link that ID is a religion. The only possible to link to ID and religion is that ID allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

  23. 23
    Querius says:

    Pragmatism suggests that the presumption of design (ID) is scientifically superior to the presumption of random junk left over from evolution.

    By pragmatism, I mean that later research and discoveries most always lead to purpose over evolutionary vestiges. For example, ductless glands turned out not “vestigial” after all and “junk” DNA turned out not junk after all.

    Question: How many “vestigial” organs were touted at the Scopes trial in 1925?
    Answer: 180
    Question: How many vestigial organs are being touted as evidence of evolution now?
    Answer: 0

    So, ID is simply better science, regardless of whether a designer exists or not. To “follow the science” is more efficient with the ID paradigm.

    A side benefit to scientific progress is that ID further exposes the obsolescence of the theory of evolution as the means of “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” as Darwin put it in the subtitle of his most famous book.


Leave a Reply