Evolution, aliens and blind faith

Do new discoveries prove that extraterrestrial life is a near certainty? Is life as ubiquitous as Starbucks coffee shops?

Quotes and comments;

1. "Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence.' [1.]

- We're not talking about 'science' but about SETI; these are not the same thing.
- We might ask B. if SETI was 'science' before exoplanets were discovered. Or was it at that point merely blind faith? By his own definition it would appear so.
- The phrase blind faith is grossly overused in our day. Most faith isn't 'blind' at all; but is based on various types of evidence.

2. 'Then Carl Pilcher, director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, was given the microphone to say, “The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger” that “There’s got to be life out there.”

- Got to be? Does this mean human beings can give orders to the universe? I wonder if the universe has to obey these orders :=)
- There doesn't 'got to be' life on these exoplanets anymore than there has to be life on Mars.

3. 'After a brief caveat that “Since much of this research is new, scientists are still debating how solid the conclusions are,” Borenstein reassures the reader that even if something simple, like slime mold, is detected first, “It can evolve from there.”

- That's a claim, not a fact. In my opinion life forms can only 'evolve' downward, not upward. At best things can change in a sideways fashion due to mutations, as mutations destroy information, they don't create information. (Trying to explain progressive evolution by way of mutation is like trying to make a rock bigger by chipping parts of it away.)

4. 'Borenstein strips it down to two factors: “How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?”

- The problem isn't getting 'life' to take root; but getting living organisms in the first place. ie. where does this 'life' come from? It has to come from somewhere (out of nothingness) before it can take root.
- As I've said before; there is no such thing as life. There are living organisms; there is no such thing as life. (A better question would be; how many places can support living organisms?)

5. 'Bolstered by Wolf-Simon’s arsenic microbes, he beamed, “That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before...''

- Wrong. The word he should have used in possibility; not probability.
- The fact x happens on earth says nothing about the rest of the universe. i.e. there is no necessary connection. (If there are no life forms in the rest of the universe we can see how what happens on earth has no necessary connection with what happens in the rest of the universe.)

6. 'Calling on SETI Institute senior astronomer Seth Shostak, who “ticks off the astronomical findings about planet abundance and Earthbound discoveries about life’s hardiness,” he agrees that these points “have gone in the direction of encouraging life out there and they didn’t have to,” – so much so, that denying the existence of extraterrestrial life, Shostak alleged, is tantamount to believing in miracles (i.e., that life only exists on earth).

- Where has the empiricism in science gone?
- Is Shoshtak admitting that if 'life' isn't found in the universe, life on earth is a miracle :=)

Notes;
1. SETI Ignorance Gets Stronger Creation/Evolution Headlines 12/09/2010
Dec 09, 2010 — “Science is not about blind faith” begins a video posted on MSNBC about SETI. Part of an article by AP reporter Seth Borenstein, “Evidence for E.T. is mounting daily, but not proven,” the video explains Frank Drake’s famous equation that tries to quantify the probability for extraterrestrial intelligence (09/29/2010, 11/24/2008).