Taking Tuesday off, I saw this show on the Science Channel called Strip the Cosmos.  Suspecting what it would be, I watched some of it and sure enough I was right.  The episode that I watched was called “Alien Worlds.”  It was filled with philosophical materialism (the belief that matter and energy are all that exist) guised as science.

They were explaining how life could exist elsewhere.  The whole point of this is to show that life is something that could happen anywhere.  Life does not require a creator.  They discussed Enceladus, a moon of Saturn as an example of where life could exist.  The ice covering on Enceladus blocks out the sun.  Then they used the Don Edwards Nature Refuge in California as an analog for how microbes could exist, because it has a two inch salt crust completely blocking out the sun – “a perfect parallel.”  The narrator stated “Methanogens, tiny microbes that thrive underground; they were among the first life-forms to appear on earth over 3.5 billion years ago – perfect examples of how life adapts and evolves.”

This is a perfect example of how Darwinists equivocate and extrapolate.  They equivocate when they use the term “evolve.”  These methanogens are suited to live where there is not any sunlight.  Maybe methanogens “evolved” to live in that environment.  Maybe methanogens always lived in that environment.  But using the term “evolve” suggests the General Theory of Evolution (all of life on this planet evolved from a “simple” single celled organism).  And if these microbes did “evolve” to live where there is no sunlight, using that change in the microbe to say that microbes could “evolve” into all of life on this planet is an extrapolation to the nth degree.

The show goes on to discuss the Kepler Space Telescope to look for planets that orbit distant stars.  Mark Sykes planetary scientists stated “We didn’t know whether there was enough debris left from star formation that would accumulate into planets.”  Notice the assumption on how the planets were made, despite the fact that this planet formation has never been observed.

The show goes on to discuss NASA’s Starshade Project.  The narrator stated “The prospect of finding life on another planet drives the Starshade team.”  Mark Thomson of NASA stated “The scientist’s I work with are like Columbus, and I’m building his boat.”  So that is how these scientists see themselves, like Columbus.  Then Thomson went on to say “But today we had a successful test and we are one step closer to finding life on other planets.”  Again, that is what NASA is about now.  It has been hijacked by philosophical materialists that want to prove that life on this planet is not special and does not require a creator.  And they are using taxpayer dollars to fund this effort.

The episode went on to describe the importance of the earth’s magnetic field in protecting us from solar radiation.  The narrator stated “The sun is a giant nuclear reactor.  It belches streams of radiation towards earth – a constant barrage of charged particles called the solar wind.”  Michelle Thaller, astronomer, described the solar wind stating “They’re actually high energy particles; and when they hit organic compounds, it actually breaks up the molecules.  They could actually break up our DNA – cause damage, mutations.”  This is a very interesting statement.  Michelle Thaller is actually acknowledging genetic mutations are a bad thing – and they are.  Genetic mutations cause a host of diseases,¹ to include various kinds of cancer.² Over time, even nearly neutral mutations accumulate and cause a genetic load; causing the genome to deteriorate.³  But according to the Darwinists, genetic mutations are how genetic information was added to go from a “simple,” single-celled organism to all of life on this planet.

Phil Plait, an astronomer and a Darwinist,⁴  stated “Mars may have been earth-like before earth was earthlike.  But unfortunately the atmosphere was eroded away by the solar wind – climate change on a catastrophic, global scale.  I can’t imagine any life could survive such a huge event like that.”  My question is:  Was this climate change due to carbon emissions from human activity?

I have learned that church leadership is totally afraid to deal with this topic.  But church leadership needs to understand that if the church does not deal with this, the only viewpoint people will get will be from shows like this, Time Magazine, what our educational institutions are teaching, etc.  And by church leadership not dealing with this, parishioners are left to think that shows like this must be stating fact.  Then the parishioners are left to find their own way of making the Bible fit the “science,” with disastrous results.  Biblical authority is eroded.  Then people who profess to be Christians are O.K. with abortion, shacking up, homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” etc.  You have to ask yourself if many of these people who profess to be Christians really are Christians.  That is why I maintain that church leadership must step up and take this issue on if they want to change the direction of this society.

I always include scripture in my articles.  The scripture I find most fitting for this article is Isaiah 50:10-11:  “Who among you fears the Lord and obeys his servant?  If you are walking in darkness, without a ray of light, trust in the Lord and rely on your God.  But watch out, you who live in your own light and warm yourselves by your own fires.  This is the reward you will receive from me:  You will soon fall down in great torment.”⁵ This is a stern warning about philosophical materialism which is the basis for secular humanism.

Terry Read

1. http://www.genome.gov/10001204

2. http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfCETJ_PI1s

4. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/06/religion_and_science_answering_creationists_questions.html

5. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+50&version=NLT