Myopia of the mission to Mars

As a technical achievement, NASA’s current mission to Mars is staggering. The staggering complexity of the landing and the successful deployment of the roaming robot with its powerful cameras are astounding, no question. Clearly at this stage, it is too early to talk about success or not. However, we can still ask ourselves, ‘What are the key beliefs underlying this search?’ At its most basic level, is this an investigation in search of other forms of intelligent life and, if so, is that search justified?

· OTHER WAYS OF LIFE?

If you believe in an unplanned and totally fortuitous ‘Big Bang’ origin of the universe and a single origin of life that has tortuously evolved to where we are today, then you may have a deep interest in seeing if other life forms exist in the universe. other countries. parts of the cosmos. And perhaps this curiosity is fueled in part by a cosmic loneliness, a sense of our smallness and seeming 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 a wonderful confirmation if it had happened elsewhere. It could also, as a derivative, support contemporary atheism. Yes, I can see how all of this can be very attractive, given the beliefs and assumptions in the first place.

OPTIMISM JUMP

I also see a problem, a big one. The human mind is so vast in terms of its sheer, baffling, and baffling complexity that believing that our deep rationality arose through natural selective advantages is not an evidence-based science, but rather a great leap of optimism without reason.

What people forget is that it is not possible to live and think coherently, strictly on the basis of philosophical naturalism, the belief that physical and natural reality is all there is, because we are already more than can be explained. on that basis.

· MINDS ARE MORE THAN MOLECULES!

If we were just a complex conglomerate of molecules, we would have no basis why our reason believes that the universe is understandable, and we, important personal beings in it, because information that can be decoded, could not simply be embedded in a universe. ultimately meaningless mass of matter. Also, where does objectivity come from, who decides? But then asking questions assumes that there are answers, such as, ‘Am I a zero – a total non-entity, or if I have any meaning and meaning, I mean real meaning – where will this information come from? ‘Not from other molecules. Are complex collections of matter capable of conferring some kind of final objectivity to other collections of matter? I do not believe it.

NARROW VISION

Well, I suppose you know why the reason for the mission to Mars is a case of myopia: myopia or myopia in a metaphorical sense; a point of view that considers nothing outside of a very narrow field of view. I’ll tell you why: naturalistic philosophy and secular humanism is the main ideological basis that NASA takes for granted. But NASA (and by no means alone) continues to borrow a conceptual framework inherited from Christian theism from which evidence-based science emerged, in an understandable universe, in the 17th century. This follows from a study of the historical roots of early modern science, and how superstitious ideas were swept away, not by denying biblical creationism, but by accepting the simple reality that the living God has imbued reality with profound comprehensibility. , including the transcendence validity of our reason; that is, a validity that cannot be explained by neo-Darwinian theory, which is trapped in doubt because it lacks a sufficient basis to trust the validity of a reason merely inherited from other animals and undermines its own theory. Did you learn about the truth and honesty in data handling of a meaningless evolutionary cosmos, or of our humanity made in the moral and rational likeness of the God who made all things?

RESULTS ARE INTERPRETED IN A FRAMEWORK

If NASA finds intelligent life on Mars or elsewhere, it will interpret its findings using the lens of its naturalistic ideology and assume it happened by chance, with no ultimate meaning other than confirming its own belief. Is that confirmation science based on evidence? No, it will simply be a conclusion based on an interpretation, which you believe is consistent with your ideological type of science, while all the while denying the biblical theistic foundation that gave us objective and meaningful science in the first place.

That is what I mean by ‘myopia’, a point of view so restricted that it does not consider anything outside a narrow field of vision, or even more, a large blind spot that is not prepared to see that the majesty of the night sky is a silent indicator of the greatest 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 the boot is firmly on the other foot.