On May 19th the British House of Commons passed the new Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill. It is the first nation to pass legislation of this type but almost certainly will not be the last. This bill marks the crossing of a Rubicon for humanity, the consequences of which no one can even begin to foresee. It opens a ghastly panorama of science fiction nightmares that are not likely to ever be exceeded in the future of the human race.

The bill allows the creation of four types of embryos for new organisms which are all part human and part animal. They are:

Cybrids - These will be creatures with animal cells replaced with a human nucleus. These will allow epigenetic effects to operate on the human nucleus.

Chimeras - These are organisms that are made of a mixture of human and animal cells. On September 7, 2007 in “Human Animal Hybrids Have Been Created” this Blog reported the creation of Sheep Chimera that had a human liver.

Transgenic Embryos - These will be creatures with a small amount of human or animal DNA mixed with the opposite member. This is done in genetic engineering such as taking genes from one plant and placing them in a different plant. Science fiction writers have often envisioned creations such as humans with chloroplasts, who do not need to eat because they turn sunlight into food directly.

True Hybrids - These are the most disturbing of all. In these procedures human eggs or sperm will be fertilized by their animal counter part thereby creating an organism that is 50% human and 50% animal. The Nazis tried this unsuccessfully during WWII when they tried to impregnate Jewish women with ape sperm. They hoped to create the perfect slave laborer. Where the Nazis failed perhaps the others will succeed?

Some temporary solace can be taken from the fact that these monsters from “Frankenstein science” as the Catholic Cardinal of Scotland called these embryos, will not legally be allowed to live past 14 days. However one wonders what will be the fate of a half human that is allowed to live “illegally” past 14 days? What if its creator simply forgets to kill it at 14 days?

The reason given for the creation of these partially human entities is their alleged value as research tools in medicine and basic biology. While there are serious scientific questions about their value for these purposes, all types of marvelous
cures for terrible diseases such as Alzheimer’s are postulated. It is on the basis of such claims as this research may lead to breakthroughs in treating human diseases that the pressure to allow this ghoulish exploration is generated.

Why This Is Important

Even if the serious moral questions surrounding these experiments are ignored, there is still plenty of danger here. Soon pressure will come to allow these organisms to go full term and be born. The Pandora’s Box of problems that will follow probably cannot even be dimly imagined today. It does not require much of a stretch of the imagination to see people crossing cells from their pets, that they love dearly, with cells from their recently dead spouse or lover and creating for example a half dog/half man. It might look like one and have the brain of the other. Imagine the possibilities of what its “owner” might do with that?

Source: “MP’s Back Creation of Human - Animal Embryos”, by Mark Henderson and Francis Elliott, www.timesonline.co.uk. May 19, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph.D.

In broad outline the Book of Genesis gives the following information about early human history:

1. All humans are descended from one woman and one man. (Genesis: 2)

2. Humans originated in an area close to or in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. (Genesis 2) The early human population grew to a considerable size (Genesis: 5)

3. At some point early in human history the entire world population was almost wiped out by a catastrophic event. (Genesis: 6)

4. The world was repopulated by the survivors of this catastrophe. (Genesis: 10)

This narrative has found support in recent research published in “The American Journal of Human Genetics.” Please keep in mind that this article has nothing to say about the relevance of this research to the above scriptural passages. The conclusions of this research as stated are completely secular. However there are Biblical implications in this research.

The study examined the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) of the Khoi and San people, they are two groups of hunter and gathers living in southern Africa. These two bands are considered “…unique relics of the hunting and gathering life style.” Their genetic material represents a pocket of reproductively isolated genes with ancient roots. The analysis of their genetic material is quite complex and convoluted so no detail is included here, if you are interested, the original article is referenced below. However the findings of the researchers were shocking to some and are fascinating to review.

First this work reminds the reader that mitochondrial DNA research supports the idea that we are all descended from one woman. For those interested, there are also Y Chromosomal studies that show that we are all descended from one man. Sound familiar? (Adam & Eve)

Second, in addition to showing lines of descent and the approximate time that these lines diverged from their ancestral line, such studies can also point to the original geographical dispersion patterns of populations of organisms. The current dominant theory among paleoanthropologists is that humans first appeared in Northeast Africa somewhere around the Rift Valley. This area is only about 1,000 miles from the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Given the imprecision of such studies, the actual focal point of human origins could easily have been anywhere within the East African/Middle Eastern region which includes the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. Again does this ring a bell? (Garden of Eden)

Third, this and other cited studies concluded that the human race underwent a catastrophic near extinction about 70,000 years ago. A related piece of research done by a group from Stanford University concluded that the world population may have collapsed to as little as 2,000 individuals. It is argued that this catastrophic population implosion was “probably” caused by a drought. However the study does not postulate a world wide drought, so it is difficult to see how a drought would have caused a world wide population decline? However this event would fit very nicely with the expectations of what would follow a world wide hydrological catastrophe as described in Genesis 6. (Noah’s Flood)

Fourth, the study points to the fact that all existing humans are the descendants of the survivors of this catastrophe. Again, does this sound familiar? (Genesis 10)

Why This Is Important

This research while probably not intended to have Biblical implications in its broad brush strokes, paints a picture of the early history of the human race that is consistent with the Biblical narrative. Some may take exception to the details of the research but its general outline certainly has a ring of familiarity to it.

Sources:

1. “Humans Nearly Wiped Out 70,000 Years Ago”, April 24,2008,www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/24/close.call.ap/index.html

2. “The Dawn of Human Matralinial Diversity”, in The American Journal of Human Genetics, by Doron Behar, et.al., April 24, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

You may be a “Thought Criminal” and not know it. So, if you have not yet seen “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, I strongly suggest that you see it. Ben Stein produced this movie to alert the public to some very disturbing trends. The movie exposes a widespread effort in academia and the media to suppress the fact that a growing number of mainline scientists are beginning to consider Intelligent Design as an explanatory factor in their work or world view.

Intelligent Design is probably most often defined as the argument that the origin of the Universe and the origin of life cannot be completely explained by purely natural, random or unguided processes alone. This leads to the argument that at some point supernatural intervention was required to either start the process or to intervene in it. This supernatural force is usually identified as God. The movie shows what happened to some scientists and teachers who dared to openly consider Intelligent Design. They very quickly found themselves purged from the field, loosing their positions, abilities to publish, reputations and more.

This movie attempts to tackle an enormously large set of subjects. Adequately addressing such a large body of information in two hours is nearly impossible. A twenty-four part series would be inadequate to cover issues that include: science definitions, science history, biology, evolution, Darwinism, Social Darwinism, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, academic freedom and much more. But Stein did a good job of providing an overview and introduction to this battle that is being waged against scientists and scholars who want to consider Intelligent Design.

The film recounts what happened to several researchers who dared to write about scientific research findings that support the Intelligent Design argument. These people have paid dearly career-wise for openly thinking about Intelligent Design.
Keep in mind that in most cases they were not advocating it, but only discussing it. Their crime can best be described as a “thought crime.” Such crimes in the 20th Century generally occurred in the Marxist countries where such crimes were covertly and occasionally openly punished. In Marxist regimes anyone who dared question the Neo-Marxian worldview usually found themselves without a job and home and in some cases imprisoned, like Alexander Soljenitzen, and occasionally as under Stalin or Mao execution was also a real possibility.

The film also discusses some of the problems with Social Darwinism and its consequences. It briefly reviews the undeniable link between Darwinism and the Eugenics Movement and their use by regimes such as the Nazi’s with their theories about survival of the fittest between competing races and how this was directly linked to the Holocaust.

Not surprisingly the film has infuriated the Darwinists. The film is being attacked on all sides. The factual accuracy of the film is usually not attacked directly because many of the facts are undeniable so they speak for themselves. Therefore the criticisms have mostly fallen into marginal areas such as claims that the film does not tell the other side of the argument completely enough or that there are copyright issues about the use of some animations (it is hard to imagine a more irrelevant criticism).

Arguably the films most important point is that the effort to squelch discussion of Intelligent Design is an infringement of freedom of speech and thought. Whether or not Intelligent Design is factually correct is not the main issue for many, the main issue is freedom of thought. The Darwinists, materialists and atheists want to straight-jacket us all, having us put on blinders to the evidence that points to God’s creative role in the Universe by saying that Intelligent Design is not science. However at the same time they contradict themselves by also claiming that the scientific evidence against Intelligent Design is “irrefutable.” If this is the case, why are they trying to suppress free discussion of the subject? The truth is only too
obvious; they know that their beliefs are based on extremely weak evidence and in all probability will collapse under future scrutiny. However Darwinism is the basis for moral relativism and moral relativism is the foundation of the political left. Therefore there is no length these people will not be willing to go to in order to enforce their ideological orthodoxy.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Imagine your surprise if you suddenly discovered that the person you thought was your grandfather was actually born more recently then your father.  Well, that is exactly the position that Darwinists are in, given new genetic studies of sponges and jellyfish.

Sponges are very simple, “primitive” life forms. They lack true tissues, having no muscles, internal organs or nervous systems.  They even lack a digestive system.  They resemble something like a colony of independent cells.  They have long been regarded as representing a first step in the evolutionary transition from single-celled organisms to the first multi-celled organisms. Comb jellyfish on the other hand are more advanced, complex organisms having such innovations as internal organs including a nervous system.

According to the Darwinian model of the “Tree of Life,” all life forms are descended from a single-celled ancestor which evolved through time by exclusively random, natural, accidental process into ever more complex multi-cellular organisms.  This model is a hierarchy, which requires that simple life forms must come first and give rise gradually to more complex life forms. Consequently, primitive organisms like sponges must evolve before more complex organisms like jellyfish can be “naturally selected” into existence.

So, imagine the surprise a group of scientists using powerful new genetic research tools had when they discovered that their data showed that comb jellyfish diverged onto their own evolutionary path before sponges. “This was a complete shocker. . . So shocking that we thought something had gone very wrong,” said Casey Dunn, the team’s lead researcher from the University of Hawaii. But despite checking and rechecking the data still pointed to the same conclusion – the more complex animal predated the simpler animal.

Despite this “shocking” finding in contradiction to the predictions of the Darwinian model, the Darwinian model was not brought into question.  After all, these scientists want to keep their jobs and one does not question Darwin in academia (an alleged bastion of unfettered “free thought”).  Consequently, two highly improbable alternative explanations were offered in an attempt to bludgeon the data back into the constraints of Darwin’s 1859 insights.  The suggested solutions are that either sponges devolved from a heretofore completely unknown, more complex ancestor or the comb jellyfish evolved their complexity independently after they went off onto their own evolutionary branch of the Tree of Life.

Why this is Important

This study raises three critical problems only one of which is even addressed by the authors.  The first problem is the fact that the higher form of life is more ancient than the lower form.  The evidentially unsupported speculations mentioned above that are offered to account for this are weak at best and will likely not find support by further research.  The second finding that is even more important is the undressed time factor.  The fossil record shows that jellyfish appeared suddenly in the fossil record.  The third problem is where are their ancestors in the fossil record? If jellyfish didn’t evolve from the sponges where did these complex creatures come from? In terms of the Darwinian model the evolution of organs such as a nervous system would have taken at least ten’s of millions of years.  So where are the original and intermediary forms?

This is not the first case where genetic research has collided with Darwinism.  Genetic research has been making it harder and harder to maintain the Darwinian straight jacket that claims that life appeared and evolved without any divine or intelligent intervention.

Sources:

“Broad Phylogenomic Sampling Improves Resolution of the Tree of Life”, Casey Dunn et. al., Nature, April 10, 2008 pp 745-749.

“The First Animal on Earth Was Significantly More Complex The Previously Believed”, Science Daily, April 11, 2008.

By Lawrence Vescera Ph. D.

This July will see a unique event in the history of modern thought. It may very well prove the beginning of a true “Paradigm Shift” in biology. The Event has been labeled the “Woodstock of Evolution” and will probably mark the beginning of the end of the status of Darwin’s writings as holy writ and Darwinism’s strangle hold on freedom of thought and speech. This meeting will be attended by sixteen of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science. It will take place in Altenberg, Austria at the Konrad Lorenz Institute. The reason for the meeting is the recognition by most of these scholars that Darwinism is retarding progress in biology through its insistence that biological evolution can only occur through natural selection operating on random processes.

Thought in the nineteenth century was dominated by three main figures Marx, Freud and Darwin. Freudianism has fallen into disrepute through repeated experiments showing that it does not work and in reality can be harmful to psychiatric patients. Indeed in most of its controlled tests the patients in the untreated control groups almost always do better than the patients receiving “psychoanalysis.” Marxism has also been rejected almost everywhere except on university campuses because the people living under Marxist governments eventually get tired of being poor while their neighbors prosper. Darwinism, however, has not died yet, because it is foundational to materialist philosophy, the cornerstone of which is cultural relativism, with its claim that there is no absolute right or wrong. Right and wrong to cultural relativists are just matters of taste not revelations from God.

Unfortunately, devotion to Darwinian orthodoxy also had the unintended consequence of stopping scientific progress in biology. Despite its failures, biologists were reluctant to consider the possibility of any mechanism, even other materialist mechanisms, as possible drivers of evolution. The rarely admitted reason for this strict enforcement of thought policing was the fear that any admission that Darwin could have been wrong might bring down the entire materialist edifice. However reality eventually will force the admission that the emperor has no clothes and that is where biology finds itself today. It has become painfully obvious that Darwinism, despite its claims, cannot explain “the origin of species” satisfactorily and when it comes to questions such as the origin of life, Darwinists have completely abandoned the effort, admitting that it is hopeless within their paradigm.

This is why the meeting in Altenberg is taking place. It is hoped that this meeting will find a new way forward in biology. This new way forward will be called the “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.” However this new synthesis will not be a victory for the recognition of a role for God in the creation and evolution of life such as proposed by Intelligent Design. It will instead be an effort to rescue materialism by finding new naturalistic explanations for the origin and development of life. The areas that will be looked to are theories of self organization such as Chaos Theory, a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, the Butterfly Effect and similar theories that exclude God from consideration.

Why This Is Important

Despite the fact that only materialist theories for evolution will be acceptable explanations in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, it probably will still a be giant leap forward because it will undermine Darwinian orthodoxy in all areas of science, philosophy and social policy. Once Darwinism is more widely recognized as too restrictive for biologists it will also begin to decline in popularity in the social sciences and with this decline as orthodoxy new explanations will be looked at. What will be the most interesting of all will be to see what happens with the new theories of self organization. As anyone who has followed this literature knows, theories of self organization have been widely discussed for over forty years and despite repeated claims of breakthroughs they have so far proven a total failure to explain biological evolution. As these theories continue to prove fruitless in the future, it will be interesting to see what straw the materialists will grasp at next?

Source:” Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution” by Suzan Mazur, March 4, 2008, www.scoop.co.nz/stories .

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Channel One is an advertisement based educational television network that is currently broadcast into more then 11,000 schools in the United States. In exchange for having students watch their programming and commercials, the schools receive the programming and viewing equipment such as TV monitors and VCRs for free.

Channel One has regularly run stories critical of Intelligent Design and supportive of Darwinism. The stories contained many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, errors of fact, and misleading material. These inaccuracies include using the term evolution to mean Darwinism and using the term Intelligent Design as if it included only Young Earth Creationism. This was done in an effort to portray Intelligent Design in the worst light possible. They tried their best to paint the proponents of Intelligent Design as enemies of science, truth, and fact. They conversely tried to present Darwinists in the most positive light possible, portraying them as beacons of reason, intelligence, truth, beauty, virtue, and the American Way. They stopped short of claiming that Darwinists could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Recently, Channel One ran a poll in their “Your Turn” section under the title “Evolution or Design” to explore the reaction of the students to whom they have been broadcasting their propaganda. On February 15th an online survey of almost 1500 high school students was conducted to test the effectiveness of their crusade for Darwinism. The students were given the choice of four options regarding what should be allowed in the teaching of origins. The results must have astounded the Darwinist advocates at Channel One. The results are below.

High School Students Only
1. Evolution Only - 9%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 53%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 25%
4. None of These - 13%

The poll remains open to the general public now, and as of today the results from all respondents, not just high school students, are below.

All Respondents as of 3/1/08
1. Evolution Only - 19%
2. Intelligent Design Only - 44%
3. Evolution and Intelligent Design - 24%
4. None of These - 13%

Why This is Important

Despite the enormous efforts of the media, Hollywood, and the rest of the Materialist/Darwinist Complex, they are failing miserably to convince the public that life is the result of a random, purposeless, and exclusively natural process. It is especially interesting that high school students reject the Darwinist Paradigm by an even wider majority then the public in general.

Those who are trying to get the message out that there is a God and that life has meaning and purpose should take heart from these results.

Source:
ChannelOne.com

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph. D., Isaac Newton Institute

In 1943, C.S. Lewis published “The Abolition of Man.” In it, he warned against using science to debunk natural law and objective values to the detriment of the understanding of what constitutes humanity. It is doubtful that Lewis envisioned that “man” as an objectively definable entity could cease to exist within the next sixty-five years, but that is indeed what is about to happen.

British researchers at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne have announced the development of a technique to turn female bone marrow cells (mesenchymal cells) into sperm cells. A similar technique is also expected to allow male marrow cells to be turned into egg cells. Therefore, women will soon be able to produce sperm, and men will be able to produce eggs. The projected uses of the technique are to enable infertile couples to produce children, but its most startling effect will be to allow same-sex couples to produce children that are biologically their own. In the near future, there will be children that are not born of a woman and a man. There will be children of two fathers or of two mothers.

This is no small matter. Think about this carefully. What will the status be of these entities? Are they true human beings? They will certainly appear to be fully human in every way, but what is a human being? Historically and biologically, humans have always been the offspring of a father and a mother. These beings will be persons who will either have no mother or no father. Where will this go in the future? Cloning is possible now. Even more troubling, human genes have begun to be introduced into animal and plant reproductive germ lines, and animal and plant genes will likely soon be introduced into the human germ line. Consequently, “enlightened scientists unencumbered by religious prejudices” will endeavor to produce more completely hybridized humans, finally succeeding where the Nazi’s earlier efforts had failed by producing half ape, half human creatures.

Why This Is Important.

The physical consequences of this new technology probably will be small compared to the spiritual, psychological, social, and emotional consequences. What will it mean to be human? As this technology expands, the very concept of humanity will expand and be progressively eroded and diluted until it becomes as ill defined as the modern concepts of beauty and justice. What the fruit of this abolition of man will be is extremely difficult to predict; nonetheless, it seems probable that it will not be good. Knowing the proclivities of humanity, the extinction of “human beings,” in historical terms, is a virtual certainty.

Source:
1. “Death of the Father: British Scientists Discover How to Turn Bone Marrow into Sperm,” By Feona Macrae, Daily Mail, January 31, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph.D., Isaac Newton Institute

The mysterious nature of intelligence has been deepened by increasing evidence that intelligence requires neither a brain nor a nervous system. This is abundantly displayed in the animal kingdom where all sorts of organisms with no brain, and in some cases no nervous system, carry out tasks that require intelligence. Colonies of social insects such as bees, ants, termites, and social spiders display an amazing degree of intelligence building hives, engaging in agriculture, trading symbiotically, enslaving other insects, herding, and engaging in other specialized activities. In some cases, as with certain species of spiders, even isolated individuals perform extremely complex tasks with only the most rudimentary ganglia and primitive nervous systems.

Going even further, it was reported by this Blog on September 15, 2007 in “Microbes Have Consciousness” that even bacteria can display what certainly appears to be intelligence and self-awareness. Not only was the shocking behavior of slime molds discussed but also the even more stunning discovery that some microorganisms actually carry out “genetic engineering.”

As mind-boggling as these discoveries are, it appears that they have been surpassed by the new discovery of “molecular telepathy.” A team of researchers at the Division of Molecular Bioscience of the Imperial College, London has discovered that subunits of DNA molecules have the ability to recognize similar units in other DNA molecules and then congregate together. This is done without intervening proteins and over considerable distance (1 nanometer). The mechanism by which this is preformed is unknown.

Why This Is Important

Despite monumental failures, materialists continue to claim that they know that intelligence and consciousness are simply the by-product of the electro-chemical activities of the brain. It is too early to explain this amazing behavior by segments of DNA molecules. Chemistry and physics may be able to account for molecular telepathy; however, it may turn out to be one more inexplicable discovery that is set aside because it does not fit the expectations of materialist philosophers. This would be a shame for many reasons not the least of which is knowing the truth of reality.

Source:

1. Geoff Baldwin, et. al. “DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment,” Journal of Physical Chemistry, January 31, 2008, Volume 112, No. 4, pp 1060-1064.

2. www.physorg.com/news120735315.html, Jan. 28, 2008.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

When I took Evolutionary Biology, even considering the possibility of direction in evolution was a Class I “thought crime” and so was Lamarckian Evolution. Lamarck’s evolutionary theory argued that acquired characteristics could be transmitted to offspring. Suggesting that either of these conjectures could be a valid idea was punishable by an F in the class and a strong recommendation that you change your major to Physical Education. These “thought crimes” could only be absolved if you recanted your heresy by placing your hand on a copy of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” and swearing fealty to the true Darwinian faith in Evolution by means of Undirected Natural Selection alone as the only route to true “evolutionary understanding.” Therefore I was astonished to learn that “Current Biology” has just published an article authored by an international team of biologists that argues for “Directed Evolution” through a Lamarckian mechanism.

These scientists have been studying the shape of the female genitals in flat worms. While studying this glamorous topic they discovered that the evolution of these organs was displaying “direction.” This directionality of a process that was supposedly random forced an about-face and the resurrection of Lamarck’s long despised theory in a desperate attempt to avoid an even more unacceptable possibility. Lamarck had to be resurrected because the other major explanatory theory that this finding could be pointing to is some type of supernatural design and this of course is an even greater anathema than Lamarckianism.

What is also remarkable about this new finding is the reaction of the scientific community and the media to this about face. Somehow they have twisted this finding around to be a proof of Darwinism, rather than a refutation. For example on January 18, “sciencedaily.com” carried the astonishing claim that “According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, individuals in a species pass successful traits onto their offspring through a process called ‘deterministic inheritance.’” “Deterministic inheritance”? Are my eyes deceiving me? Have not random mutation and natural selection been the cornerstones of Darwinism, while Intelligent Design advocated a “directed process” of some type?

In using the term “Deterministic inheritance”, what the Darwinists are referring to is one of the “dirty little secrets of Darwinism”; this is the fact that it was Darwin’s disciples, not Darwin, who completely rejected Lamarck or the possibility of evolution through a supernaturally directed process.

Why This Is Interesting

What is most remarkable about this whole affair is the ease with which Darwinists manage to interpret or misinterpret any finding so that it supports their assumptions. Even though this research is in total disagreement with the cornerstone of Darwinian orthodoxy, the Darwinists pretend that there is no problem at all. This should cause them to open their minds to the possibility that some of their previous ideas have been based on faulty assumptions, but such an idea is beyond unthinkable and would result in career-ending excommunication by their colleagues in academia.

So no matter what the research shows, Darwinism is not questioned. This hypocritical pattern is also seen in other areas, such as “global warming” where above average temperatures are embraced as proof of global warming. But in places where temperature averages are below normal, the cause is also attributed to global warming. This is reminiscent of the Freudian tactic of claiming proof for his theories such as his theory of “latent homosexuality”. Freud claimed that, like him, we are all supposed to have such feelings. The proof of this was twofold. If you admitted to having such feelings, it proved how correct he was. If you rejected the claim, however, that also proved how correct he was by virtue of the “fact” that you were too threatened by the feeling to admit the truth.

Sources:
1. “Trends, Stasis and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulua Development” Current Biology, Karen Kiontke et al, Nov. 2008, Volume 17, pp. 1925-1937.

2. “New Findings Confirm Darwin’s Theory: Evolution Not Random”, sciencedaily.com, Jan. 18, 2008

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

The Earth’s Moon is most unusual, it is very large, yet its mass is very low, but this is exactly what is needed for life on Earth. How the Moon originated was a profound mystery until the Apollo Astronauts brought back lunar rock samples; these showed that the Moon was formed in a huge collision with a planet about the size and mass of Mars early in Earth’s history.

Almost all collisions between planet-sized bodies leave behind nothing but a lot of debris, as in the asteroid belt. However, the angle and speed of this collision were exactly right to permit the two planets to just barely disintegrate and to allow the more massive Earth to extract the core and heavy elements from the smaller planet before recollecting into their present forms. This process super-enriched the Earth with metals and left behind a moon with the characteristics needed by advanced life.

Our Moon does three things that are absolutely essential for advanced life. The first and most important of these is the stabilization of the Earth’s axial tilt. The equator is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees to the plane of its orbit around the sun. This permits the Earth to enjoy a stable climate and maintain liquid oceans over vast periods of time. Without a massive moon like ours, the gravitational tug-of-war between the Sun and Jupiter would cause the Earth’s axial spin to gyrate wildly. This would be disastrous for life.

Second, the Moon also regulates the oceans’ tides. The tides play a number of important roles in the maintenance of life, including the Carobonate/Silciate Cycle and Plate Tectonics.

Third, the Moon acts as a break on the Earth’s rotation rate. It has slowed the planet’s spin at exactly the rate needed to maintain the necessary temperature, wind velocity, and other factors required to properly regulate the greenhouse gas environment without triggering a runaway greenhouse effect. This is part of the phenomenon known as the “Solar Luminosity Paradox” which is far too complex to be dealt with here but is also an inexplicable miracle.

SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence)

This most unusual collision event created a profound question for those searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. How common are such collisions? If higher life forms require a moon like ours, what are the chances of a collision like the one that formed the Moon happening again?

To answer these questions researchers at the University of Florida, the Seward Observatory in Tucson, and at the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile conducted an examination of a star cluster known as NGC 2547. Collisions of the type that formed the Moon leave behind a gigantic dust cloud and are detected easily. The purpose of the examination was to look for the dust cloud left behind by such a collision. NGC 2547 holds about 400 stars and is the right age for the desired stage of planet formation. Of the 400 star systems examined, only one showed evidence of having once had a planetary collision event. This led the researchers to conclude that any type of planetary collision is very rare, especially one that is just right to leave behind an object like our Moon.

Why This Is Significant

The presence or absence of life on other planets is not a theological problem for Christians. If God created life here, He can certainly do it elsewhere. But to those who believe that life originated solely thought a natural process, with out the need of God, the discovery of extraterrestrial life is an essential element of their faith. They theorize that the natural processes that brought about life on Earth should produce life on other planets when the conditions are the same. They believe that the Earth is not special, and there is no God; therefore, life should be common in the Universe. This claim was famously repeated ad nausium by Carl Sagan. This idea drives SETI and its ancillary programs such as the desperate search for evidence of large amounts of liquid water once having been on Mars.

The discovery that the Moon is indeed a very rare and perhaps unique object in the Universe does not support the expectations of the SETI theorists and their assumption of “a Universe loaded with intelligent life.” The Earth – Moon system is finely tuned to a stunning level of specificity. A billion things had to go just right at the right instant for the Moon to have come into existence. The chance of this happening even once as the result of a random natural event is so vanishingly small as to be in effect Zero.

Sources:
1. “A Moon Like Ours Is Rarely Formed”, The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News: Phillip Schewe and Jason Bardi, Dec 5, 2007, No.

2. “Debris Disks in NGC 2547”, The Astrophysical Journal: Nadya Gorlova, et al., Nov.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.