By now it should be painfully obvious that for many, space exploration and the search for life on other planets reflect not only man’s quest for adventure and knowledge but the search for why we are here and how we arrived. In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.

False dichotomy.  At least some number of scientists could care less where God fits in the debate.  Some may think as she states.  Me, I don’t have any desire to eliminate ‘God,’ but life on Mars would be really good for getting our religions to perhaps lighten up on the ‘man is the center of the universe’ thinking.

The bottom line is life cannot rise from inanimate material.

And you know this … how?

Who the hell gave this idiot a PhD?

If you’re dissing her because of her connection to patents, you’re on thin ice. If you’re dissing her because of her being a lawyer, well, yeah, of course I agree.

Wehn I was in college honors freshman chemisty we had to do a project of our own – basically a science fair project. I did a version of the Miller experiment in a simulated Venus atmosphere, an extension of a science fair project I did in high school. My teaching associate (TA) instructor wrote literally three pages in my lab notebook about why the Miller expreiment was flawed from a religious point of view. I made a C in that course, not high enough to get me out of having to take a third quarter of chem along with the rest of the freshman herd. I’d like to say the TA and the C were related, but they weren’t – I just got lazy and didn’t do a good job. Loneliness and the opposite sex – the downfall and ruin of many a scientist…

.

Just like the frazzled GI in the foxhole under fire saying, “Lord, if you get me out of this I’ll become a [insert humanitarian adjective here] man,” NASA has to try and foment some controversy to keep interest and funding up for its programs.

From the X-43A hitting mach 7 over the Pacific to daily pictures from the Hubble (now isn’t that ironic) they’re trying to grab attention.

Much like RickyJames did with his headline…

…this was the headline she choose herself for her editorial.

I actually emailed Dr. Hollowell and received a response, which I am including here despite the obvious ethical gray area of doing so. Shame on me, as she more or less tells me herself. I sound a little condescending (not to mention sarcastic) because I didn’t read her credentials until I had written my response; then I went back and revised part of it.

To: Dr. Hollowell
Subject: Religion on Mars?

I believe your opinion piece contained some errors. I’d like to point them out.

“That means they view the discovery of the past-presence of water on Mars as a twofer. First, it’s a big return on the billions of dollars poured into space research. Second, it brings believers in evolution one step closer to refueling the weakening presumption of this theory on earth.”

The theory of evolution is still the best explanation for all the evidence for the origins of species, and is a cornerstone of modern science — which is not based on belief, but on best evidence. The theory is only weakening in the imagination of true believers in religion, who don’t have any use for evidence except as they can bend it to bolster an agenda undermining science, and indeed, knowledge, in favor of irrational belief.
The great majority of biologists, physicists, ecologists and other scientists accept evolution as fact based on best evidence.

“By now it should be painfully obvious that for many, space exploration and the search for life on other planets reflect not only man’s quest for adventure and knowledge but the search for why we are here and how we arrived. In other words, discover life on Mars; prove evolution; disprove God.”

This is just a silly proposition and hardly worth responding to, but I think it shows how blind religious belief limits the quest for real knowledge.

You fear that if evolution is proved it will disprove the existence of God. This shows that you have little faith indeed. Scientific advances have been disproving religion’s assertions for thousands of years, and yet religion is still with us. But scientists do what they do; if it disproves erroneous prior beliefs, so be it. Darwin and Einstein both had difficulty accepting the implications of their own discoveries, due to their religious backgrounds; but they didn’t back off from them because of it.

I hardly think any scientist would have much of a career if his motivation was to disprove the existence of God. Most logically thinking people agree that this can neither be proved nor disproved. It’s simply a matter of what best explains the evidence, what is most likely.

Unfortunately the same can’t be said for religious believers. In the world of true believer fundamentalism, there is only one true God and one true belief, so if anyone challenges its foundations they must have evil intent (the devil makes ‘em do it!). It’s typical of such people that they project onto others their own thought processes and motivations. Thus, “creationists” and “intelligent designists” bend and twist evidence — and truth — in a vain (and absurd) attempt to cast doubt on evolutionary theory.

Scientists seek truth by examining evidence, formulating theories to account for the evidence, and testing the theory to see if it holds up. The difference is they start with an open mind. Religionists start with the fear that real knowledge will disprove what they’ve been taught to believe, what they want to believe, and attack what they view as a threat to their beliefs.

“The bottom line is life cannot rise from inanimate material. No one needs a Ph.D. to know that a rock sitting in a pool of salt water will not produce life – no matter how many times lightening strikes.”

We don’t know how life came about. That’s one of the things science would very much like to discover. At present, it’s a mystery. Unlike believers, scientists don’t think they KNOW something they actually merely BELIEVE. If they did, there wouldn’t be any science, because no one would ask any challenging questions. Which is what happened for hundreds of years during the Middle Ages, when Christians burned people at the stake for questioning what was supposedly “known”. But since not everybody is satisfied that blind faith solves all questions, I think it’s best we continue poking around a bit and not just accept superstition as the final word on the subject.

Life may have arrived on a bit of rock from elsewhere in the universe, its origins another quantum step deeper into mystery. It may have developed out of the primordial oceans — hardly a rock in a pool of salt water, but rather an incredibly complex stew of amino acids and other basic materials. (You’re a molecular biologist?) I’m not really up on the current ideas about life’s origins, but any one of them would be more plausible I’m sure than an all powerful invisible man in the sky shaping a guy out of mud and then a woman from his rib. (Really? A molecular biologist?) This is a children’s story, and the fact that so many adults believe it uncritically is a frightening testament to our desire not to grow up as a species. (Especially if molecular biologists believe it).

By the way, where did you get your Ph.D — Bob Jones University?

Dr. Hollowell wrote:
University of Miami School of Medicine Dept. of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology – PhD thesis: DNA cloning technology – discovery: novel tyrosine phosphatase expressed in developing cns

how about you?

Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD

To: Dr. Hollowell
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: Religion on Mars?

Just a working stiff who likes to read

Dr. Hollowell wrote:
no – you are also someone who makes personal attacks on those having a differing view rather than focusing on the subject matter in an effort to reason

that’s too bad – you are obviously an intelligent, critical thinker – others could benefit from your insights if they weren’t packaged in sarcasm

Kelly Hollowell, JD, PhD

To: Dr. Hollowell
Subject: Re: Religion on Mars?

Sorry if you were offended — but I discerned a touch of sarcasm in your article, no? It doesn’t offend me, I see some benefit in sarcasm, satire, and the lampooning of the ridiculous, the hypocritical and the ignorant– touches of which I also discern in your article, in your response, and in the general assault on science, knowledge and critical thinking which passes for “scientific” thought among the religious far right, regardless of pedigree.
So don’t take it personally — your boys Falwell, Robertson, the Limbaugh brothers and others are not paragons of courtesy and restraint, yet I’m sure you have no trouble sharing that website there with them.

By the way, I think I reasoned my way around the subject matter pretty well. I saved the “personal attack” (so thin-skinned) for last. I couldn’t leave my incredulity behind, that a PhD in molecular biology can be a party to such nonsense as intelligent design, really just a gussied up creationism. It’s not a matter of a choice between two religions, like Islam or Buddhism, but about what the evidence points to, and the scientific method, and the definition of science. For  a biologist to go on the front lines for pseudo-science she can expect a few guffaws, and I think, would be prepared for them, since you put your addy out there for anyone to use. What did you expect, a halleluyah chorus?

If you read much of Sciscoop, you will notice that RJ if fond of alliterative, punny, you-must-be-KIDDING titles for his posts.  Hey, the guy enjoys playing with words… and when the reader bothers to complete the article, he sees the humor/connection.

That this headline was also the title of the good doctor’s essay is even better.  It speaks volumes for her own credibility as a scientist.

These discussions always remind me of C.S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy. Whether Lewis’s interplanetary theology actually makes that much sense, ever since I read it (and was strengthened in my Christian faith by much of Lewis’s other writing) it’s been absolutely clear to me that there’s no conflict between abundant life in the universe and Christianity, nor any religion that recognizes a loving God.

Evolution, to the faithful, is obviously just one of God’s ways of making things happen in this world. It’s produced some pretty amazing and wonderful results here on this planet – if life really does seem to be abundant elsewhere, I can only hope I have been born late enough to see more of life’s wonders while I still have life myself!

Of your four “alternatives” to evolution, only the first one — intelligent design — is relevent. All the others are just panspermia theory, and life had to have started somewhere whether it be on Earth, on Mars, or somewhere else entirely.

Since intelligent design has no scientific evidence in its favor, abiogenesis seems to be the most simple and well-backed explanation. Prion research has shown that proteins can fold other proteins without need for external genetic information recently, and so the foundation of self-replecation and heredity has a scientifically established mechanism to begin in the primordial soup. How lipid wall, organelles, nucleic acids, and other features of modern life came to be is merely an exercise in the reactions of proteins to their surrounding environment.

You know, I really want to ask people like Hollowell this question:

Which do you think is the better record of God:  the opinions of humankind — sundried, contradictory, fallable; or the indelible imprint of God right before us: the universe.

I am not a religious person, and I have no desire to be.  But if you are, you quite obviously accept that God created the universe.  What is the task of science?  To catalog that universe, to understand that universe.  If a finding of science conflicts with religious dogma, then, it seems obvious what to do: throw away the dogma!  The universe should be the ultimate arbiter of what God did, not ancient metaphors and creation myths, that probably weren’t meant to be take literally any way, and which have had countless generations to be misremembered or goofed up.

There is absolutely no conflict between science and God, unless you make one.  Why do you choose to make one?  Think deeply and honestly about your reasons, and ultimately you will come up with an answer that has nothing to do with religion or God.  And that is a shame.

Amen, brother, preach on.

It is possible for other intelligent life (human) to exist somewhere in the universe and not want to communicate with us because we lack real human to human intelligence.

It is possible for other intelligent life (human) to exist somewhere in the universe and not want to communicate with us because we lack real human to human intelligence.

“Valdrax” wrote:

Of your four “alternatives” to evolution, only the first one — intelligent design — is relevent. All the others are just panspermia theory, and life had to have started somewhere whether it be on Earth, on Mars, or somewhere else entirely. Since intelligent design has no scientific evidence in its favor…

Yeah, but “PURPOSEFUL” design, (some physical need in nature that manifests itself into intelligent life in order to satisfy this need), is a valid scientific hypothesis that CAN be empirically and theoretically supported. From that you *can* reach for a higher power, (if you feel the need), but that doesn’t mean that Gabriel riding across the sky in a flaming chariot while blowing his horn, constitutes “scientific” evidence for god…

…As an unbiased scientist, the following is as close to a fact as you can get, and that really is sad, because, and, per the usual, the truth lies squarely between the poles of this hotly debated topic:

“teece” quoted their hero:

There is absolutely no conflict between science and God, unless you make one. Why do you choose to make one? Think deeply and honestly about your reasons, and ultimately you will come up with an answer that has nothing to do with religion or God. And that is a shame.

– Timothy Klein

I ran across an article written by Dr. Hollowell and was intrigued at her erudition, logic and ability to speak plainly, while maintaining a core of humanity. I googled her name to find out about her background (research it’s called, orson) and was fairly amazed at her educational background.

After reading a few more articles, I clicked on a google entry that was your ‘holier than thou’ letter to her. You are obviously afflicted by your belief in your own… intellectual self-importance, and it made an otherwise interesting read into something that was fairly worthless. Yes, I do believe that how you say it is as important as what you say, and you exhibited a disposition of ad hominem attacks.

Were you one of my undergraduates (even a high-schooler), I would have to give you a D minus; I’ll give you a little credit for at least taking the time to write what you believe.

P.S. – No, I am not a right-wing religious nut, just a scientist who is fairly appalled at the level of discourse that passes for ‘acceptable’ in our society.