Page 12
XXXVI
Coming Clean with Godliness
An Affinity for Divinity / Part 1
credit: mrmillionth.deviantart.com
I like the notion that many demons and other spirits may really have been -- and actually still are -- extraterrestrial beings in one form or another. If one really thinks about it, the universe portends to be a very crowded place. If we include all the poltergeists, goblins, ghosts, apparitions, specters, phantoms and phantasms, let alone gods, demigods, fiends, monsters, ogres and angels and devils, then add in outer space aliens as well, things should tend to get pretty shoulder-to-shoulder, I would think.
But here's a real group of questions for both readers and explorers alike:
I'm fascinated by the idea that there appear to be two kinds of science. Two kinds of scientists, if you like. Twin ways to approach the subjects of religion and science. Most people, it seems to me, tend to concentrate their attention on only one -- or the other -- of these two separate disciplines.
Interestingly my focus has always been on the other (second) of the two approaches to science. And rarely on the side where others couple religion and science together as an incontrovertible "force-of-one". This is why I like to say that my universe doesn't have a God in it, whereas I realize and appreciate that others' view of the cosmos is that of an indivisible wholeness of God and space-time together.
The first kind of science, for lack of a better description, is this mix between religion and science. Nothing in the universe, verily the universe itself, can exist without God, Who created all there is. Since this belief (this universe) requires the presence of God in order to exist, it is only logical that everything in the universe validates and proves the existence of that God. If we say that only God can create a galaxy, then the existence of a galaxy is proof that God exists. This self-reflexive system is very clever in how it works.
The same is true for mathematics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and extraterrestrial life forms. All of these were created by God, therefore all of these things are a reflection of God. The more amazing and miraculous something is, the more amazing and miraculous is God Himself. The one thing reinforces the other, indeed proves the other. This kind of science satisfies and answers questions like how did everything get here without God? How did we ever get something from nothing?
If all things are manifestations of God, then God is the manifestation of all things. It's all very neat and tidy -- and scientific. The questions of who made God, and where did God come from originally, remain unanswered, and continue as the primary source of "blind" faith -- meaning God has to exist because the universe cannot be otherwise. Such a rationale declares, even demands, that nothing would make sense without the guiding influence of God, who gives meaning to our lives, and the reason for why everything is the way it is.
There is, however, an alternative view:
A second kind of science, if you will, attempts to play a game of sorts. It pretends that we don't know anything about anything. Instead of trying to prove what we think exists, it tries to discover what does exist, using the tools at our disposal. It asks questions only. And when a solution appears, it moves on to the next thing, and the next question.
One such query is whether or not a universe, like the one we live in, could have come into existence without a God. It doesn't try to disprove God, one way or the other. It pretends that God is not important to the process. If we can create a universe independent of God, then the next step is to question what role God plays in a universe that doesn't need Him. Why would God exist in a universe that can get along and evolve quite well on its own?
This second form of scientific inquiry doesn't, however, try to answer those kinds of questions. That's for theologians to deal with. Nope, we just want to know if everything we know, see, and understand, can work exactly the same as it does, in a universe without a God.
In such a universe, we would expect to see and find evil everywhere we look, but it has nothing to do with religion. It is just the natural result of conditions where people and things can behave in an endless number of ways. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. So is such a universe possible? A Godless cosmos that looks, acts, and behaves exactly the same as one in which God exists? A lot of scientists say the answer is yes.
These scientists sometimes ask the following kind of questions:
Q: Is God all powerful?
A: Yes.
Q: God can do anything?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there anything God cannot do?
A: No. Nothing.
Q: So if God wanted to un-create Himself, He could?
A: I don't understand.
Q: I mean, if God decided that He wished never to have existed, but everything else would remain the same, He could do that, right?
A: Uh, yeah, I guess so.
Q: So how would you know the difference, then? One way or the other?
A: We wouldn't, but God answers our prayers, so we know He exists.
Q: Can you prove that your prayers are answered? Scientifically? Under laboratory conditions?
A: Well, not exactly scientifically. God doesn't subject Himself to trivial tests.
Q: Well, if science can prove that God exists, then shouldn't science demonstrate that prayers are answered?
A: I don't think it works that way.
Q: So, the only way we can prove that God really exists is through the answering of prayers, but we're not allowed to test this hypothesis using scientific methods? Because God doesn't make himself available for testing purposes.
A: Yes, I guess that's right. But I think you're tricking me.
Q: Or maybe I'm showing you how you've already been tricked.
A: I don't think I like you.
With each passing decade, secular science inches its way closer to showing us how our entire universe could well be autonomous. That it is capable of spontaneous self-creation, and that the role that God may or may not play, while morally important, is scientifically moot. It is inconsequential because a universe, one of many, likely, happen all by themselves. Given the right conditions which take place all on their own, it's pretty much a matter of "poof" -- you've got a new universe.
One last example is additionally helpful. Many religious scientists now believe that evolution, once thought to be very anti-religious, is simply one of the tools that God uses to create and manipulate life here and elsewhere. It is common among Catholics, for instance, to accept evolution as God's own personal invention. Of course, humans are still special and separate from animals.
Evolutionary scientists look at their scholarly, theological brethren and smile. They grin because it is understood that secular, evolutionary scientists need never believe in a God. Or put another way, they might believe in a higher power and all that, but realize also that, like the universe, evolution is quite capable of operating independently -- free of any and all Supreme Beings.
In other words, if evolution can work without the intervention of God -- indeed, if evolution can spawn humans from tadpoles or worms, let alone monkeys and apes -- then we must again ask the same question: What purpose does God serve if He is unnecessary to the process? If evolution does not require God in order to function, then why have God at all?
The whole purpose behind solving how evolution works, is precisely to see if it can operate without a God. It is this important premise that religious scientists and secular evolutionists ignore when they propose that the twin ideas, one of autonomous evolution and one of God, are compatible. Which, of course, they are not and never will be. No more so than Jews and Christians will ever agree on the divinity of Jesus Christ. In order for evolution to operate, God must, of necessity, be left out of the equation. Otherwise it's no big deal. Otherwise the process known as Intelligent Design is just one more amazing miracle that relies on Divine intervention.
But what if it works just as well without a Design? On its own. Self-creates along with the rest of a spontaneous universe? Theological science says it can prove that the universe cannot self-create. In my world view, that same science strongly suggests that such thinking may be very wrong. The realm of secular science may ultimately prove that both sides were wrong. Which if true, is the sole purpose of its design. Most scientific secularists don't really care who is right or who is wrong. The truth is what it is. We just want to know the truth. And if God is indeed the answer, then so be it. But thus far, all indications are to the contrary.
In the end, it's not so much that God wasn't the answer. More likely is that He was never the right question. Asking whether it's possible to to make a universe without a God -- now that's a challenge. If we can do it mathematically and theoretically -- and we almost have -- then even that's an accomplishment of note. But it doesn't make us God. It just makes us talented apes. Which if true, means it's just as likely that we might very well destroy our universe while trying to understand it.
So which is it? Who's on the rational road to true enlightenment? If I'm right, we'd be confronted with living in a Godless world that to many, would seem so horrific a concept -- one so totally beyond belief -- that it simply isn't possible to imagine such a form of senseless human existence. One where morality and reason are no more significant than the dirt from which a plant grows.
It is no wonder that such a postulation is dismissed by theologians as untenable. That such ideas are considered preposterous on their face, as if I had suggested that the criminally insane were the rightful rulers of Earth.
For me, however, nothing changes. I already imagine the universe to be Godless. Or, is it a universe where God once existed but no longer does? Or, is the cosmos a place where God is a resident -- a participant even -- but lacks the omnipotence we humans endow Him with. Or, strangest of all, is He a powerful alien entity who lords over us?
Or last but not least, are things exactly as the billions of faithful believe them to be? Depends on who among the faithful, I suppose, you're asking.
I put my money on the Hindi; they like everybody.
But here's a real group of questions for both readers and explorers alike:
I'm fascinated by the idea that there appear to be two kinds of science. Two kinds of scientists, if you like. Twin ways to approach the subjects of religion and science. Most people, it seems to me, tend to concentrate their attention on only one -- or the other -- of these two separate disciplines.
Interestingly my focus has always been on the other (second) of the two approaches to science. And rarely on the side where others couple religion and science together as an incontrovertible "force-of-one". This is why I like to say that my universe doesn't have a God in it, whereas I realize and appreciate that others' view of the cosmos is that of an indivisible wholeness of God and space-time together.
The first kind of science, for lack of a better description, is this mix between religion and science. Nothing in the universe, verily the universe itself, can exist without God, Who created all there is. Since this belief (this universe) requires the presence of God in order to exist, it is only logical that everything in the universe validates and proves the existence of that God. If we say that only God can create a galaxy, then the existence of a galaxy is proof that God exists. This self-reflexive system is very clever in how it works.
The same is true for mathematics, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and extraterrestrial life forms. All of these were created by God, therefore all of these things are a reflection of God. The more amazing and miraculous something is, the more amazing and miraculous is God Himself. The one thing reinforces the other, indeed proves the other. This kind of science satisfies and answers questions like how did everything get here without God? How did we ever get something from nothing?
If all things are manifestations of God, then God is the manifestation of all things. It's all very neat and tidy -- and scientific. The questions of who made God, and where did God come from originally, remain unanswered, and continue as the primary source of "blind" faith -- meaning God has to exist because the universe cannot be otherwise. Such a rationale declares, even demands, that nothing would make sense without the guiding influence of God, who gives meaning to our lives, and the reason for why everything is the way it is.
There is, however, an alternative view:
A second kind of science, if you will, attempts to play a game of sorts. It pretends that we don't know anything about anything. Instead of trying to prove what we think exists, it tries to discover what does exist, using the tools at our disposal. It asks questions only. And when a solution appears, it moves on to the next thing, and the next question.
One such query is whether or not a universe, like the one we live in, could have come into existence without a God. It doesn't try to disprove God, one way or the other. It pretends that God is not important to the process. If we can create a universe independent of God, then the next step is to question what role God plays in a universe that doesn't need Him. Why would God exist in a universe that can get along and evolve quite well on its own?
This second form of scientific inquiry doesn't, however, try to answer those kinds of questions. That's for theologians to deal with. Nope, we just want to know if everything we know, see, and understand, can work exactly the same as it does, in a universe without a God.
In such a universe, we would expect to see and find evil everywhere we look, but it has nothing to do with religion. It is just the natural result of conditions where people and things can behave in an endless number of ways. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. So is such a universe possible? A Godless cosmos that looks, acts, and behaves exactly the same as one in which God exists? A lot of scientists say the answer is yes.
These scientists sometimes ask the following kind of questions:
Q: Is God all powerful?
A: Yes.
Q: God can do anything?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there anything God cannot do?
A: No. Nothing.
Q: So if God wanted to un-create Himself, He could?
A: I don't understand.
Q: I mean, if God decided that He wished never to have existed, but everything else would remain the same, He could do that, right?
A: Uh, yeah, I guess so.
Q: So how would you know the difference, then? One way or the other?
A: We wouldn't, but God answers our prayers, so we know He exists.
Q: Can you prove that your prayers are answered? Scientifically? Under laboratory conditions?
A: Well, not exactly scientifically. God doesn't subject Himself to trivial tests.
Q: Well, if science can prove that God exists, then shouldn't science demonstrate that prayers are answered?
A: I don't think it works that way.
Q: So, the only way we can prove that God really exists is through the answering of prayers, but we're not allowed to test this hypothesis using scientific methods? Because God doesn't make himself available for testing purposes.
A: Yes, I guess that's right. But I think you're tricking me.
Q: Or maybe I'm showing you how you've already been tricked.
A: I don't think I like you.
With each passing decade, secular science inches its way closer to showing us how our entire universe could well be autonomous. That it is capable of spontaneous self-creation, and that the role that God may or may not play, while morally important, is scientifically moot. It is inconsequential because a universe, one of many, likely, happen all by themselves. Given the right conditions which take place all on their own, it's pretty much a matter of "poof" -- you've got a new universe.
One last example is additionally helpful. Many religious scientists now believe that evolution, once thought to be very anti-religious, is simply one of the tools that God uses to create and manipulate life here and elsewhere. It is common among Catholics, for instance, to accept evolution as God's own personal invention. Of course, humans are still special and separate from animals.
Evolutionary scientists look at their scholarly, theological brethren and smile. They grin because it is understood that secular, evolutionary scientists need never believe in a God. Or put another way, they might believe in a higher power and all that, but realize also that, like the universe, evolution is quite capable of operating independently -- free of any and all Supreme Beings.
In other words, if evolution can work without the intervention of God -- indeed, if evolution can spawn humans from tadpoles or worms, let alone monkeys and apes -- then we must again ask the same question: What purpose does God serve if He is unnecessary to the process? If evolution does not require God in order to function, then why have God at all?
The whole purpose behind solving how evolution works, is precisely to see if it can operate without a God. It is this important premise that religious scientists and secular evolutionists ignore when they propose that the twin ideas, one of autonomous evolution and one of God, are compatible. Which, of course, they are not and never will be. No more so than Jews and Christians will ever agree on the divinity of Jesus Christ. In order for evolution to operate, God must, of necessity, be left out of the equation. Otherwise it's no big deal. Otherwise the process known as Intelligent Design is just one more amazing miracle that relies on Divine intervention.
But what if it works just as well without a Design? On its own. Self-creates along with the rest of a spontaneous universe? Theological science says it can prove that the universe cannot self-create. In my world view, that same science strongly suggests that such thinking may be very wrong. The realm of secular science may ultimately prove that both sides were wrong. Which if true, is the sole purpose of its design. Most scientific secularists don't really care who is right or who is wrong. The truth is what it is. We just want to know the truth. And if God is indeed the answer, then so be it. But thus far, all indications are to the contrary.
In the end, it's not so much that God wasn't the answer. More likely is that He was never the right question. Asking whether it's possible to to make a universe without a God -- now that's a challenge. If we can do it mathematically and theoretically -- and we almost have -- then even that's an accomplishment of note. But it doesn't make us God. It just makes us talented apes. Which if true, means it's just as likely that we might very well destroy our universe while trying to understand it.
So which is it? Who's on the rational road to true enlightenment? If I'm right, we'd be confronted with living in a Godless world that to many, would seem so horrific a concept -- one so totally beyond belief -- that it simply isn't possible to imagine such a form of senseless human existence. One where morality and reason are no more significant than the dirt from which a plant grows.
It is no wonder that such a postulation is dismissed by theologians as untenable. That such ideas are considered preposterous on their face, as if I had suggested that the criminally insane were the rightful rulers of Earth.
For me, however, nothing changes. I already imagine the universe to be Godless. Or, is it a universe where God once existed but no longer does? Or, is the cosmos a place where God is a resident -- a participant even -- but lacks the omnipotence we humans endow Him with. Or, strangest of all, is He a powerful alien entity who lords over us?
Or last but not least, are things exactly as the billions of faithful believe them to be? Depends on who among the faithful, I suppose, you're asking.
I put my money on the Hindi; they like everybody.
XXXVII
Coming Clean With Godliness
An Affinity for Divinity / Part 2
credit: apsgolconda.blogspot.com
Readers might be surprised to learn that I was recently granted a rare sit-down with Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. They agreed to answer a few questions before time constraints forced them to rush off to their next interview. I'll spare you all the introductory social amenities that the three of us exchanged, and get right to a transcript of the brief meeting itself:
Bob: So Al and Isaac, according to you guys, there had to be a Creator to the universe?
Albert: Yes, of course.
Isaac: I agree.
Bob: If it were possible to make the universe without a God, what purpose would God Himself fulfill?
Albert: Since such a thing is not possible, the question itself is irrelevant.
Isaac: Yes; once again, I quite agree.
Bob: Not to belabor the point, but suppose, just for the sake of argument, that based on new information that neither of you possessed before, that a spontaneous, self-created universe was shown to be theoretically possible.
Albert: Ah-ha! So, they finally solved my unified field theory. I always knew it was only a matter of time.
Isaac: Well, if such a thing were possible, then God Himself would be irrelevant.
Bob: And this would be hard for both of you to accept, even if it were true?
Albert: Yes, because it would suggest that existence is without a constant, consistent Order. It would mean that the laws of physics are all there are, or ever will be. And we are left with asking not how does a universe exist without God, but why would it?
Bob: Now that's the right question, I believe. It's the very one that professor Stephen Hawking says is the only question worth asking.
Isaac: The whole idea is preposterous. Entropy would be chaotic and forever out of balance with the harmony of mathematics.
Albert: Come, Isaac. I understand that meeting this Dr. Hawking is next on our agenda.
Bob: So Al and Isaac, according to you guys, there had to be a Creator to the universe?
Albert: Yes, of course.
Isaac: I agree.
Bob: If it were possible to make the universe without a God, what purpose would God Himself fulfill?
Albert: Since such a thing is not possible, the question itself is irrelevant.
Isaac: Yes; once again, I quite agree.
Bob: Not to belabor the point, but suppose, just for the sake of argument, that based on new information that neither of you possessed before, that a spontaneous, self-created universe was shown to be theoretically possible.
Albert: Ah-ha! So, they finally solved my unified field theory. I always knew it was only a matter of time.
Isaac: Well, if such a thing were possible, then God Himself would be irrelevant.
Bob: And this would be hard for both of you to accept, even if it were true?
Albert: Yes, because it would suggest that existence is without a constant, consistent Order. It would mean that the laws of physics are all there are, or ever will be. And we are left with asking not how does a universe exist without God, but why would it?
Bob: Now that's the right question, I believe. It's the very one that professor Stephen Hawking says is the only question worth asking.
Isaac: The whole idea is preposterous. Entropy would be chaotic and forever out of balance with the harmony of mathematics.
Albert: Come, Isaac. I understand that meeting this Dr. Hawking is next on our agenda.
XXXVIII
Coming Clean with Godliness
An Affinity for Divinity / Part 3
credit: www.liz-wachuka.com
Science, as a tool for discovery, convinces some people that God made man, and that humans did not evolve from primates or the ancestors of primates. Others believe that the Almighty made men first and only secondarily, created apes from evil, unworthy humans. This latter idea proposes that some people were intentionally devolved into a more primitive, more animalistic form of life.
My beliefs (and understanding of science) tell me that it looks as if man and apes share a lot in common. Maybe man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Maybe they didn't. Let's see if we can prove it, one way or the other. If humans and apes did share a common ancestor, then there should be evidence to support that fact. If they did not, and each represents a separately created entity, then we should find evidence for that fact as well.
In my world, according to the people I read and listen to, the evidence that supports humans and apes splitting off from a common ancestry is overwhelming. Every time we try to prove that this conclusion is wrong, new evidence (or technology) comes along and tells us we are on the right track, and to stay our present course.
As I mentioned earlier, good science says "no" to its own conclusions. Evolution, as a general theory presumed to possess serious merit, is never considered factual unless or until scientists find irrefutable proofs that support and substantiate their aforementioned conclusions as accurate. Therein lies a big difference between systems that try to prove things are how people believe them to be, versus systems that assume all hypotheses and theories are wrong unless it can be demonstrated that they are valid.
It is easy to prove or illustrate that evolution is incorrect because we're looking for things that validate our presupposition that it is incorrect. We're not looking for answers as to whether it is or isn't. We look at apes and ask why are apes still apes and men are men. If men and apes shared common ancestors, why aren't all apes gone by now, all of them having changed into humans? This is then added to a long list of other so-called proofs, all of which confirm evolution as a fictitious notion, full of wishful thinking.
On the other hand, believers in evolution ask the same exact questions, but we put forth theories that, one way or the other, are designed to prove or disprove the idea that humans and apes share an intimate, albeit distant heritage. One such theory would ask, "Well, if apes and men are both still around, and men came from apes, then there must be some evidence that homo sapiens did indeed split off from the apes as a separate species. And if this is true, where is the proof for such a wild assumption?"
And indeed, the proof is everywhere in the fossil record. It is abundant, a veritable embarrassment of riches, so to speak, filled with so-called "missing links" of every age and description. All kinds of skeletons indicate how man became not just a different species of ape, but only one of many. And out of those, only one survived, barely escaping the same extinctions which had claimed their genetic brethren, cousins, and neighbors.
So when someone denies a belief in evolution, what they are really saying is that they don't accept what others assert is indicated by the fossil record. They think the rocks themselves are telling us a false story. Even religious scientists don't dispute the fossil record. They just say it's still incomplete. Or that these strange bones are just freaks of nature. That the analysis of such bones in incorrect or improperly dated.
Well, each to his own. And neither are birds, of course, the living decedents of the dinosaurs. It is curious, however, how these heretical evolutionary scientists can be so accurate with respect to dinosaurs, about building rocket ships, curing terrible diseases, fabricating computers, and creating terrible weapons of mass destruction.
But in using the same science, that they can be so completely wrong about the prehistoric origins of human beings. And birds.
My beliefs (and understanding of science) tell me that it looks as if man and apes share a lot in common. Maybe man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Maybe they didn't. Let's see if we can prove it, one way or the other. If humans and apes did share a common ancestor, then there should be evidence to support that fact. If they did not, and each represents a separately created entity, then we should find evidence for that fact as well.
In my world, according to the people I read and listen to, the evidence that supports humans and apes splitting off from a common ancestry is overwhelming. Every time we try to prove that this conclusion is wrong, new evidence (or technology) comes along and tells us we are on the right track, and to stay our present course.
As I mentioned earlier, good science says "no" to its own conclusions. Evolution, as a general theory presumed to possess serious merit, is never considered factual unless or until scientists find irrefutable proofs that support and substantiate their aforementioned conclusions as accurate. Therein lies a big difference between systems that try to prove things are how people believe them to be, versus systems that assume all hypotheses and theories are wrong unless it can be demonstrated that they are valid.
It is easy to prove or illustrate that evolution is incorrect because we're looking for things that validate our presupposition that it is incorrect. We're not looking for answers as to whether it is or isn't. We look at apes and ask why are apes still apes and men are men. If men and apes shared common ancestors, why aren't all apes gone by now, all of them having changed into humans? This is then added to a long list of other so-called proofs, all of which confirm evolution as a fictitious notion, full of wishful thinking.
On the other hand, believers in evolution ask the same exact questions, but we put forth theories that, one way or the other, are designed to prove or disprove the idea that humans and apes share an intimate, albeit distant heritage. One such theory would ask, "Well, if apes and men are both still around, and men came from apes, then there must be some evidence that homo sapiens did indeed split off from the apes as a separate species. And if this is true, where is the proof for such a wild assumption?"
And indeed, the proof is everywhere in the fossil record. It is abundant, a veritable embarrassment of riches, so to speak, filled with so-called "missing links" of every age and description. All kinds of skeletons indicate how man became not just a different species of ape, but only one of many. And out of those, only one survived, barely escaping the same extinctions which had claimed their genetic brethren, cousins, and neighbors.
So when someone denies a belief in evolution, what they are really saying is that they don't accept what others assert is indicated by the fossil record. They think the rocks themselves are telling us a false story. Even religious scientists don't dispute the fossil record. They just say it's still incomplete. Or that these strange bones are just freaks of nature. That the analysis of such bones in incorrect or improperly dated.
Well, each to his own. And neither are birds, of course, the living decedents of the dinosaurs. It is curious, however, how these heretical evolutionary scientists can be so accurate with respect to dinosaurs, about building rocket ships, curing terrible diseases, fabricating computers, and creating terrible weapons of mass destruction.
But in using the same science, that they can be so completely wrong about the prehistoric origins of human beings. And birds.
XXXIX
The Dubious Case for Life on Mars
credit: youtube.com
In some respects, the intense and costly search for what kind of life, if any, may have spawned on the planet Mars, is an exercise in futility. As difficult are the circumstances and requirements for life to evolve at all, once established, living organisms tend to be tenacious and highly adaptable. It is nearly as impossible to extinguish the momentum of living processes, as it is to spark them in the first place.
That leaves us with a real conundrum with respect to worlds like Mars.
Earth has experienced and undergone a countless barrage of both astronomic and geologic cataclysms. A large and significant number of these catastrophic events have occurred since life first took root in both the oceans and on the land. Some extinction-level events, or ELE's as they're known, were of such immense and devastating impact, that 90% or more of all life on Earth perished as a result. But as Jeff Goldblum says in the movie, Jurassic Park, ". . . life finds a way."
And on Earth, life has always found a way, once it got started. It's almost impossible to imagine, given the wide and wild disbursement of life on this planet, a situation terrible enough to destroy all the organisms that currently exist. No asteroid or comet, no eruption of a super volcano, earthquake, solar flare or gamma-ray burst could possibly kill every plant, animal, bacterium or virus that currently resides here.
But what about when life was less well established? The situation was even less welcoming back then, and what few life forms struggled to exact a modicum of existence, did so slowly but surely. Life just always found its ways.
One thing is relatively certain: planet-wide catastrophes, when geologic in nature, happen slowly--over millions of years. On those rare occasions when a volcano, comet, or some other particular disaster transpires quickly, it's usually a more localized event. While the implications may be broad and deadly, not every nook and cranny, everywhere, is effected with the same lethal consequences.
Somewhere, some germ-like thing should survive and reproduce more of itself. And the whole process would start all over again. Just like it did on Earth a thousand times over.
The great problem for life is the initial start-up. Still the greatest of mysteries, the gap between worlds likely teeming with life, and those barren and sterile remains a vexing enigma of existence. Once going, however, and if Earth is any example, the process is next-to-impossible to stop. Short of total destruction of the planet as a whole, countless microbes or even more sophisticated types, might well survive the worst disasters imaginable.
So what happened on Mars, that makes finding life, in any form, thus far akin to the proverbial needle in the haystack? Or in this case, a single diatom amid endless deserts of ice and sand.
Part of the answer lies in making an assumption, ignoring all other factors, that life indeed sprang forth at one time in the ancient Martian past. It's pretty safe to say that presently, whatever that life was, has gone extinct. And done so everywhere, all over the planet. In the deepest cave, atop the highest mountain, within the residual ice of the largest ocean, something brought everything to an end. And did so fairly quickly by both geological and biological standards. Earth standards, that is.
If we therefore stand by the proposition that it was nearly impossible to destroy every bit of life after it had become established on Mars, the question is begged as to what calamity might have brought things to a screeching halt, all over the planet. Likewise another, more troubling quandary is posited which supports the far more likely notion that life was never spawned in the first place.
Both assertions are wildly speculative and require that certain beliefs are correct about the ancient, Martian past. One such premise relies on the idea that while life on Mars may very well have gained an early foothold, enough geologic changes happened over a relatively short period of time, that whatever organisms existed, were abruptly cut short.
It is demonstrably true that on Earth, life began soon after a molten crust cooled and lots of water lay about as large, inland seas. Prior even to the arrival of oceans. To suggest that the same events took place on Mars is not only likely, but highly probable. We may never know the answer, at least in the foreseeable future. Not until humans ultimately explore the Martian surface, both above and below.
For the time being, the multitude of roving probes, orbiting cameras and measuring devices, tend to indicate, and strongly so, that if life ever began on Mars, it ended just as quickly. Had it not, the evidence today, whether microscopic or tree size, should have already been overwhelming.
The reason such an assertion is probably more true than false, lies in an imaginary scenario whereby life began in much the same way on Mars, as it did on Earth. So far, so good. We then postulate what happened next, over a relatively short period of time. On Earth, the first bacteria, with their ability to mutate, adapt and evolve quickly, and spread by winds, sea and ocean currents, soon occupied a wide variety of planet-wide locations. It wasn't long before nearly every square mile of water, and eventually the land itself, was veritably saturated, inundated with living, squirming, mutating, ever evolving bits of organic flotsam and jetsam.
Meanwhile on Mars, possibly before they did on Earth, these same life processes were equally as active and prolific. As Martian temperatures slowly dropped lower, as the atmosphere gradually thinned, as its oceans eventually dried up and magnetic field vanished, life should have, could have, found a way. Via any and all manners of mutation and adaptation, with Darwinian natural selection in full swing, life ought to have persevered. But it didn't. Something halted everything everywhere, with no second chances.
Either that, or things never got started to begin with. Given this as the more likely scenario, we would expect to find on Mars exactly what has been found. Which is to say nary an inkling of anything whatsoever. This does not bode well for what lies ahead as we explore the balance of the solar system. Lots of enthusiasm has been expressed over what amazing discoveries yet await us, that yet lie in wait amid the subterranean oceans of any number of mysterious moons orbiting much larger, less hospitable parent planets.
Maybe.
But another theory, however, that life came to Earth from elsewhere, maybe beyond the solar system itself, may hold the key answers to all our questions. If both the lands and seas of Earth were seeded by comets and asteroids, then the warm oceans beneath the frozen surfaces of Jupiter and Saturn's satellites were probably sheltered from the bountiful gifts of their distant visitors.
On Earth and Mars, the spores of life took root, were fruitful and multiplied. Venus and Mercury were much too hot and no green thumb, natural or otherwise, ever stood a chance. But things were just right on Earth.
And they almost were on Mars as well. But not quite. The Martian oceans were a little too salty, maybe. The summers didn't last quite long enough. Winters a smidgeon too cold. For now, who knows the reasons?
One thing's for sure. At least for now. No one is answering the phone or taking our messages.
"Hello? Hello, can you hear us now? Hello?!"
That leaves us with a real conundrum with respect to worlds like Mars.
Earth has experienced and undergone a countless barrage of both astronomic and geologic cataclysms. A large and significant number of these catastrophic events have occurred since life first took root in both the oceans and on the land. Some extinction-level events, or ELE's as they're known, were of such immense and devastating impact, that 90% or more of all life on Earth perished as a result. But as Jeff Goldblum says in the movie, Jurassic Park, ". . . life finds a way."
And on Earth, life has always found a way, once it got started. It's almost impossible to imagine, given the wide and wild disbursement of life on this planet, a situation terrible enough to destroy all the organisms that currently exist. No asteroid or comet, no eruption of a super volcano, earthquake, solar flare or gamma-ray burst could possibly kill every plant, animal, bacterium or virus that currently resides here.
But what about when life was less well established? The situation was even less welcoming back then, and what few life forms struggled to exact a modicum of existence, did so slowly but surely. Life just always found its ways.
One thing is relatively certain: planet-wide catastrophes, when geologic in nature, happen slowly--over millions of years. On those rare occasions when a volcano, comet, or some other particular disaster transpires quickly, it's usually a more localized event. While the implications may be broad and deadly, not every nook and cranny, everywhere, is effected with the same lethal consequences.
Somewhere, some germ-like thing should survive and reproduce more of itself. And the whole process would start all over again. Just like it did on Earth a thousand times over.
The great problem for life is the initial start-up. Still the greatest of mysteries, the gap between worlds likely teeming with life, and those barren and sterile remains a vexing enigma of existence. Once going, however, and if Earth is any example, the process is next-to-impossible to stop. Short of total destruction of the planet as a whole, countless microbes or even more sophisticated types, might well survive the worst disasters imaginable.
So what happened on Mars, that makes finding life, in any form, thus far akin to the proverbial needle in the haystack? Or in this case, a single diatom amid endless deserts of ice and sand.
Part of the answer lies in making an assumption, ignoring all other factors, that life indeed sprang forth at one time in the ancient Martian past. It's pretty safe to say that presently, whatever that life was, has gone extinct. And done so everywhere, all over the planet. In the deepest cave, atop the highest mountain, within the residual ice of the largest ocean, something brought everything to an end. And did so fairly quickly by both geological and biological standards. Earth standards, that is.
If we therefore stand by the proposition that it was nearly impossible to destroy every bit of life after it had become established on Mars, the question is begged as to what calamity might have brought things to a screeching halt, all over the planet. Likewise another, more troubling quandary is posited which supports the far more likely notion that life was never spawned in the first place.
Both assertions are wildly speculative and require that certain beliefs are correct about the ancient, Martian past. One such premise relies on the idea that while life on Mars may very well have gained an early foothold, enough geologic changes happened over a relatively short period of time, that whatever organisms existed, were abruptly cut short.
It is demonstrably true that on Earth, life began soon after a molten crust cooled and lots of water lay about as large, inland seas. Prior even to the arrival of oceans. To suggest that the same events took place on Mars is not only likely, but highly probable. We may never know the answer, at least in the foreseeable future. Not until humans ultimately explore the Martian surface, both above and below.
For the time being, the multitude of roving probes, orbiting cameras and measuring devices, tend to indicate, and strongly so, that if life ever began on Mars, it ended just as quickly. Had it not, the evidence today, whether microscopic or tree size, should have already been overwhelming.
The reason such an assertion is probably more true than false, lies in an imaginary scenario whereby life began in much the same way on Mars, as it did on Earth. So far, so good. We then postulate what happened next, over a relatively short period of time. On Earth, the first bacteria, with their ability to mutate, adapt and evolve quickly, and spread by winds, sea and ocean currents, soon occupied a wide variety of planet-wide locations. It wasn't long before nearly every square mile of water, and eventually the land itself, was veritably saturated, inundated with living, squirming, mutating, ever evolving bits of organic flotsam and jetsam.
Meanwhile on Mars, possibly before they did on Earth, these same life processes were equally as active and prolific. As Martian temperatures slowly dropped lower, as the atmosphere gradually thinned, as its oceans eventually dried up and magnetic field vanished, life should have, could have, found a way. Via any and all manners of mutation and adaptation, with Darwinian natural selection in full swing, life ought to have persevered. But it didn't. Something halted everything everywhere, with no second chances.
Either that, or things never got started to begin with. Given this as the more likely scenario, we would expect to find on Mars exactly what has been found. Which is to say nary an inkling of anything whatsoever. This does not bode well for what lies ahead as we explore the balance of the solar system. Lots of enthusiasm has been expressed over what amazing discoveries yet await us, that yet lie in wait amid the subterranean oceans of any number of mysterious moons orbiting much larger, less hospitable parent planets.
Maybe.
But another theory, however, that life came to Earth from elsewhere, maybe beyond the solar system itself, may hold the key answers to all our questions. If both the lands and seas of Earth were seeded by comets and asteroids, then the warm oceans beneath the frozen surfaces of Jupiter and Saturn's satellites were probably sheltered from the bountiful gifts of their distant visitors.
On Earth and Mars, the spores of life took root, were fruitful and multiplied. Venus and Mercury were much too hot and no green thumb, natural or otherwise, ever stood a chance. But things were just right on Earth.
And they almost were on Mars as well. But not quite. The Martian oceans were a little too salty, maybe. The summers didn't last quite long enough. Winters a smidgeon too cold. For now, who knows the reasons?
One thing's for sure. At least for now. No one is answering the phone or taking our messages.
"Hello? Hello, can you hear us now? Hello?!"
You're currently on page AST12
listed under ASTRONOMICON.
