Let’s hear it for scientific neutrality on the uniqueness of Earth:
“Such a condition [red shift analysis] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… The hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena… Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative … But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”
—Edwin Powell Hubble (“The Observational Approach to Cosmology”)
“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
—George Wald, Nobel Laureate (Scientific American, August, 1954)
Everyone is capable of being blinded by a bias, an irrational fear that skews their views. For some that irrational fear is God.
Incredibly, some people are terrified of the Deity. As aberrant and distraught a position as that is, many people (including scientists, Nobel Laureates, physicists, astronomers, others) sink into hysteria when a Creator is proposed.
Personally, I find the hypothesis that random forces and mutations (mistakes and ruptures) created the universe and all life within it, to be a maniacal thought. I’ve actually looked into the eyes of men with doctorate degrees as they confess “I know evolution doesn’t work but what’s the alternative? God? I go down that road and I lose my job, my grant and any hope of tenure.” They confess to me in secret, in a Starbuck’s over a latte away from their skeptical colleagues and thought-policing superiors who would punish them for their philosophical defection from naturalism.
To the untrained it is simply the hallucination of choice, the latest flavor of Kool-Aid, one that spares obedience to a higher intellect and grander battle plans. To the angrier regiments that have entrenched themselves in our good sciences, it is the raving cavalry charge of men who would pull the world back with warped winches into crazed and slaughtered half-reasoning, the bulwarks of which were disproved and torn down one-hundred-and-fifty years ago.
Some men are frantic to keep heaven empty.
There was a time one’s best answer against unhinged science was warm Scripture. And honestly, that is always your best answer.
But today science is the best weapon against science.
You think biogenesis can happen? Be a man, be a thinking man, and run the math on it.
See what happens.
Technically biogenesis must occur before natural selection can work to allegedly evolve one species into another. The only part of this entire proposition that is true is the natural selection part. But natural selection (bounded variations within a species) is not the same a long age trans-species metamorphosis.
Stop towing the party line and delve into the scientific journals… and go deep. There you will find our prized erudition trembling under the weight of its own collective discoveries.
Statistics will slay any chimera and good science will always slay bad science.
Evolution as it is touted today is a dead 19th century daydream.