A news article titled ‘Strongest evidence yet to there being life on Mars’ was published at the Telegraph. It paints a picture that we are on the cusp of a monumental discovery.
Once you dig into the article, though, you quickly come to learn that there is very little actual evidence supporting their claims.
What evidence do they have that there’s life on Mars? The facts are this: there are rocks that “appear” to be made of clays and minerals which have been altered by water.
So, nothing solid. The headline is hype.
Why would evidence of water running through clays and minerals matter anyway?
Well, they have a theory about the origin of life, and if that theory is correct then possibly their newly-published theory about these signs of life on Mars is correct, too.
But the long and short of it? “We need more funding to learn more. Please send a check ASAP unless you would rather us lose ground to these Christian six-day creationists.”
The Bible tells us that man was formed by God from the dust of the ground and filled with the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). All the other living things? Well, at God’s command (Gen. 1:11, 14, 20, 24) the earth brought forth vegetation, the celestial bodies appeared, he created the creatures of the sea and the sky, and the earth brought forth all living beasts.
These scientists have a different theory.
At least, we think it’s a theory. They talk about it as if it’s fact-based truth:
“Although we all live on the surface of Earth, life did not originate here, but actually in the sub surface.
It was only when life had taken hold below the surface that it gradually expanded and came up to the surface.”
How do they know this?
COMPETING THEORIES, COMPETING FAITHS
They don’t. It’s all theoretical. There could be microbes under the surface of the Martian surface because conditions under the surface are more conducive to sustaining life than those above the surface, sure. That wouldn’t really tell us how the microbes got there, though.
They have a theory of the origin of man that is designed to compete for dominance against the Bible’s story. Evidence of microbes living under the surface of Mars would, they think, lend support to their theory.
But Bible-based theories can also explain such evidence (should we ever find it).
Modern secular humanism takes ancient mythological, pagan creation myths and wraps them in a layer of pseudo-science. Armed with this feculent fajita, they think they can shove aside the delicious fruits that spring forth in abundance from the Tree of Life as revealed in the truth of the Bible, the written Word of God.
It shouldn’t be surprising. Men have been trying in vain to elevate their dumb speculations over the Word of God for over 6000 years.
As a Christian, finding life on other planets shouldn’t shake our faith (though it certainly seems implausible — at least implausible enough that there are other more pressing problems that we should be spending our money on for now). But the problem is the visible bias against Christianity displayed in this “research.” They should be forced to compete for funding on the free market the way everyone else does. But no.
Their attempts have gotten boosts in the last two centuries because they’ve used the coercive power of the state to steal taxpayer money to fund their agenda. They also have a captive, full-time audience to serve the fruits of their research to: children who attend public school.
They knew they had to capture public funding because they knew they wouldn’t stand a chance competing for dominance of ideas in the free market.
But their game is over. The end of public schools is approaching. The Khan Academy has demonstrated the power that the Internet has, and is going to increasingly have, in the future. Parents can give their children better education from better teachers through free online videos.
They won’t have to send their children into terrible schools to suffer the wrath of bullies and cowardly administrators who let the violence happen, who then punish the victim who defends himself or herself as if they were as guilty as the bully who initiated the act of violence.
And they can also pick and choose the bias they want to expose their children to. What will they choose?
Here’s a hint: it won’t be evolution.