I love my science fiction stories, with starships and aliens and strange new worlds.
But – while there are strange new worlds out there, and we might even make starships someday – there are no aliens. Or at least, there is no scientific evidence for them.
There really is a difference between my imagination and what is real.
Then again, the centre of my life is not
“There is no god, no Source of the Law,
except (the right sort) of Men”
“There is only one God, one Source of the Law,
in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
As such, I can be entirely comfortable with the mundane, easily observed idea, and utterly scientific (“posteriori reasoning”) fact “that life cannot create itself”. There is no need for me to insist that random chance, given sufficient billions of years, will create life.
The Scientific Method
So what’s the scientific basis for this astrobiological “consensus”? The scientific method is, of course, a posteriori reasoning: we collect evidence, propose a framework (theory) by which the evidence can be evaluated, and arrive at a conclusion — in the case of SETI, the conclusion is the near certainty of extraterrestrial life.
The evidence on which the near-consensus that we are not alone is based is… zero. Nada. Non-existent. There’s not a shred of evidence for life anywhere but Earth. What little passes for evidence — the discovery of extra-solar Earth-like planets and of proteins — is meaningless unless we know that answer to the question: How did life arise on Earth, and how can life arise elsewhere? We know nothing about the source of life on Earth, and fanciful theories don’t count. A posteriori reasoning (the scientific method) depends on evidence first and foremost. And we have no evidence for extraterrestrial life and no idea how life arose in the only place we know — Earth.
Why So Sure?
So why are “experts” so sure that extraterrestrial life exists? The evidence is zilch, so to reach the conclusion that ET is almost certainly out there, experts must have an extraordinarily compelling theoretical framework. And they do — materialism. It is an unexamined act of faith among science elites today that materialism explains all of the natural world. So if materialist abiogenesis worked on Earth, it’s undeniable that it would work on other worlds with matter (oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon) and starlight like our own.
The firm belief in extraterrestrial life — a belief nearly universal in the scientific community — is an act of faith. It is an act of faith in materialism. It is based on no evidence whatsoever. If anything, the evidence thus far is that extraterrestrial life does not exist — after all, we’ve looked and haven’t found any. Perhaps it’s waiting around the corner, but there’s no evidence it is, and there’s no scientific reason to think that it is.
Just Around the Corner
So when you hear scientific experts tell you that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” or “The materialist hypothesis — that the brain causes consciousness — has made a number of predictions, and every single prediction has been validated,” keep in mind that this is the same crowd who are sure — damned sure — that ET is just around the corner, despite not a shred of evidence or science to support the assertion.
Astrobiology, like Darwinism and materialist neuroscience, are acts of faith. So much of modern science is just materialism and atheism, posing as science.The “Surprisingly Consistent” Answer to the Question: Are We Alone in the Universe? by Michael Egnor
That is increasingly the point of modern science: not to uncover the truth by reasoning, but to entrench atheistic materialism with priestly/scientific language (and state-run educational systems) used to obscure and mystify, not clarify and illuminate.
I suppose we can wait until “2 + 2 = 5” is actually promoted, but I don’t feel the need to do so: assuming that random chance can create anything serves much the same function.
The claim that men can be women just on their say so (coupled with the passing of a few laws) will no doubt be soon proclaimed as indisputable fact by the scientific community as well. “The voice of man trumps reality!” Our Masters cry.
“Ummm…. what is scientific, exactly, about a powerful man’s voice determining reality?”
“That is the point of science: no authority above the Will of Powerful Mam, no authority outside of the Will of Powerful Man!”
“No. The point of science is to determine some aspects of physical reality by experimentation and analysis. Collect evidence from external reality – propose a theory – test the theory – arrive at a conclusion that is refutable. It is engineering and math, not ideology or party politics.”
“External reality is determined by the Right Sort of Minds.”
“Ah. A Kantian perspective, I see. Well, I have no interest in allowing powerful and politically connected men (even with the right certifications and licenses!) to determine the Law and Reality, so I will be moving on.”