A big part of science is asking the right questions. We've been looking for signs of life elsewhere in the universe, but how do we know we'd be able to detect them even if life is out there? One way to answer that question is to send a probe far into space...
...and see if it detects signs of life on the one place we know for certain it exists in the universe—Earth! That was one of the goals of the Venus Express mission. Launched in late 2005, it was sent millions of miles away to study Venus. But while it was there, astronomers...
... turned it towards Earth to see if it could detect signs of habitability on our own planet. It detected certain molecules associated with life in Earth's atmosphere, but the problem is, Venus shows the same signs and it's not habitable. Astronomers hope to fine-tune...
...their observations to detect more definitive signs, like that of photosynthesis—the process of converting starlight to chemical energy for plants and other organisms—on Earth and apply that to the search for life on planets outside our solar system. Pretty clever!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We have an apparatus to investigate the natural world, called science.
If there's another realm to reality, separate but interacting with the natural world, science is not equipped to investigate it as it does the natural world.
You can't demand that it needs to. Here's why.
Let's use an analogy. Astronomers use filters to observe the universe at different wavelengths (colors) of light. If I put a blue or green filter on a telescope, blue or green light is all it can see. You can get a lot of useful data that way, like in this image.
Astronomers use filters to pick out details of that stand out at different colors. This is because different elements and chemical compounds radiate or absorb light at different wavelengths (colors) of light. We know from experience there's a different reality at each color.
Existence is far more strange and fascinating than you realize.
Modern life is almost designed to beat our innate sense of wonder out of us.
Take a moment to appreciate just how odd and wonderful it is that the world can be described by mathematics.
As physicist Eugene Wigner points out, there's no reason this must be. He wrote a paper called "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," and I urge you all to read it.
Second, if you read Michael Heiser, you see that the Bible acknowledges a whole pantheon of other gods. I believe these other gods exist. But they are lesser, contingent beings, not deserving of our worship or obedience.
Everyone has a "god" – something that sits on the throne of their heart.
If it's God, it will go well for you.
If it's not, it will eat you alive.
Your "god" could be money, fame, looks, work, politics, even something ostensibly wholesome, like fitness or helping people.
But no matter how important, how "good" you think your god is, if it's not God – the ground of existence, the wellspring of life, goodness, and love – you're serving something lesser, and it will consume you.
Christians, don't think this doesn't apply to you. If you're constantly stressed, miserable, anxious, ill-at-ease, frequently in conflict with others, then check to see if you have an idol.
fyi, I'm not exempt from this. I'm constantly pushing idols off the throne of my heart.
Science doesn't disprove God. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
There is nothing in established, well-supported science that contradicts the existence of God. Nothing.
There isn't even anything in speculative "science" that contradicts God.
The best speculations that anti-theists come up with merely make God redundant, but those usually involve infinite regress or static eternal models, both of which have serious problems. It's very difficult to come up with plausible scenarios that don't have an ultimate cause.
It almost all comes down to problems with pain, morality, pride. If you could somehow remove all of the emotional baggage that comes with the idea of God, an intelligent Ultimate Cause would be seen as the most probable explanation for the world by every intellectual...
Years ago, I had a convo about beliefs with a fellow scientist at a conference. She talked about her Christian brother, and how they'd argued about evolution. When she tried to defend the theory of evolution, she told me she realized she didn't know why she believed it.
[Note: I'm neither defending nor attacking evolution here. Just demonstrating how beliefs work even amongst scientists. Back to the thread...]
She'd never studied evolution, didn't know its core premises or predictions, and didn't know the evidence that supported it.
She just "believed," because that's what scientists are supposed to do.
I've noticed, in all my years as a scientist, a very odd thing. If a colleague wants to establish that he or she is a for-real scientist, he or she will say "I believe in evolution."