May 24, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Public Invited to Participate in Astrobiology's Future

NASA’s Astrobiology Program is charting a new roadmap for future projects, and the public is allowed to voice its opinions.

Astrobiology Magazine announced “A Roadmap for the Future of Astrobiology.”  Born in 1996, the new “science” of astrobiology was an interdisciplinary effort with the following 7 goals:

  1. Understanding the nature and distribution of habitable environments in the universe
  2. Exploring for habitable environments and life in our own Solar System
  3. Understanding the emergence of life
  4. Determining how early life on Earth interacted and evolved with its changing environment
  5. Understanding the evolutionary mechanisms and environmental limits of life
  6. Determining the principles that will shape life in the future
  7. Recognizing signatures of life on other worlds and on early Earth.

Yet after 17 years, no solid evidence for “astro”biology exists.  Since NASA’s projects in astrobiology are funded with tax dollars, the public has a right to express its views on the value of these questions, and whether a new consortium of scientists is needed to address them.  Many of these subjects have long been studied without the formation of a new “science” garnering additional funds.

Members of the public interested in voicing their opinions about the future of astrobiology can log in at astrobiologyfuture.org and express themselves.  In addition, there is always the avenue of writing one’s representatives.

Astrobiology is one of the biggest boondoggles in NASA.  In 1996, an overly hyped NASA press conference about possible fossils in a Martian meteorite (since debunked) launched the new science of astrobiology; now we’re stuck with it (coincidence?).  Any new science is not just a name; it’s an institution.  It costs money to print materials, hold conferences, run websites and do all the other things that come along with a new label.  How would you like it if NASA invented a new “science” called “astropsychology” and asked the government for millions of dollars for establishing new journals, building research centers, and holding conferences for scientists to speculate about what they know nothing about?  (Oh, wait a minute—wasn’t that called SETI?)

There’s astronomy, and there’s biology, but never the twain shall meet until and unless life is actually found beyond Earth.  Fifty years of searching has turned up nothing.  It’s a mythical science.  Studies of extrasolar planets and their habitability could be performed, and have been performed, without calling it astrobiology.  All the rest is predicated on belief in materialistic Darwinian evolution.  Darwinists have been studying all that stuff for decades, long before 1996, and they probably would on their own dime anyway.  (Don’t you love #3, “Understanding the emergence of life” — the old Stuff Happens Law.  Without the magic word “emergence,” Darwinism wouldn’t have a concept to talk about.)

“Astrobiology” is a euphemism for materialistic philosophy masquerading as science.  Here’s a roadmap for them, all right: a big U-turn and refund.  Can we still afford this boondoggle in a struggling economy, with foreign enemies trying to kill us and our allies?  Why not fight cancer with the money?  You have a brief opportunity to tell NASA what you think about the way they are spending your tax dollars to speculate in front of the nation about “emergence” by materialistic means of the most complex systems in the universe.  Even the simplest functional protein can be calculated as so astronomically improbable, it will never “emerge” under the most hopeful conditions (source).  Yet faith in the impossible drives these shamans to convince gullible people that they, too, emerged on a lucky planet once upon a time.  If this riles you, speak up.*

*Please be discreet if you state your views on their website.  Ranting only backfires.  Also, appeals to religion or creationism will be rejected without consideration.  There are plenty of scientific and philosophical questions that they cannot dismiss at the outset.  Learn the art of asking the right questions and stating opinions in a way that commands respect.

 

(Visited 48 times, 1 visits today)

Comments

  • Jon Saboe says:

    I think an exciting new branch of science would be astrophrenology. Once all of the astrobiologists and astrobiochemists have completed an initial, comprehensive catalog of potential mythical creatures adapted for various mythical environments, it becomes necessary to ascertain what form of intelligence or emotional makeup these newly imagined denizens of interstellar worlds might have emerged.

    Astrophrenologists could study the actual hard data provided by drawings and computer simulations or specific creatures, and apply Darwinistic attributes based on the shapes, ridges, and contours of their heads and/or other protrusions. This would provide invaluable data on the mental and even cultural makeup of any given alien civilization PRIOR to actually meeting them. And, unlike astrobiologists, astrophrenologists would enjoy the benefits of having actual objects of study.

    Another potential for HARD science would be xenoastrology. Actual star charts would be made from the vantage point of any given extrasolar planet, and brand new zodiacs and horoscopes would emerge, giving us even further insight into the beliefs and dreams of yet-to-be-discovered life forms that will forever enrich our own lives, if and when they are discovered.

    (Think I could become a candidate for the above program???)

  • Jon Saboe says:

    Addendum: I bet I COULD get a govt grant if I demonstrated proper party loyalty…

  • socko says:

    I would like to propose we spend even MORE money on astrobiology. It simply isn’t enough to fund arm-chair Jedi warriors to merely speculate on all this stuff. What we need is a workable solution to the problems of long-haul space flight. Then they can check it out in person, for themselves…. and with any luck they could pursuade the entire executive branch of government (& the IRS) to accompany them. Now that would be value for money!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.