Martian rocks and bad science

Ian taylor

When Darwin gave the theory of evolution to the world in 1859, his followers recognized that, according to his theory, there must have been some point in earth's early history when life spontaneously appeared from non-life. The process is called abiogenesis.

School textbooks teach that amino acids came together by chance in some primordial sea and formed proteins, and that these proteins eventually became your high school biology teacher. However, textbooks seldom use the word "abiogenesis". Why? Perhaps it is because the student will have been told on another page that life can come only from pre-existing life, a univerally recognized principle known as the Law of Biogenesis.

This piece of scientific double-think takes on new importance in light of the lastest news from NASA that "signs of primitive life on Mars are found in ancient meteorite" (New York Times, Aug. 7, 1996). (The formal report appeared in the Aug. 16 issue of Science.)

Two years after Darwin's announcement, France's greatest bio-chemist, Louis Pasteur, showed by a series of elegant experiments that the existence of life depended upon biogenesis. This work was internationally recognized and won him the coveted French Academy of Sciences prize. Pasteur was outspokenly opposed to Darwin's theory and in 1864 delivered a widely reported defence of divine creation as the only possible initiator of life.

Five weeks later, the French press announced that elements of life had been discovered in a meteorite that had recently fallen at Orgueil. A French chemist said that it contained "a complex mixture of high molecular weight", suggesting that it had derived from once-living organisms. The story was given currency by the highest authorities. In 1871, Sir William Thomson, president of the British Association, declared that life had come to this planet, carried on "countless seed-bearing meteoritic stones". As recently as 1964, the popular Life Science Library book, The Cell, reflected on the Orgueil meteorite and declared that "cell-like fossils have been found in meteorites."

In 1961, spectral analysis of the Orgueil meteorite showed that the mysterious hydrocarbons "very closely matched the composition of butter". It doesn't take much imagination to provide an alternative explanation for the Orgueil meteorite involving someone attempting to provide evidence for Darwin's theory and at the same time discredit Pasteur. All our perpetrator would need is a lack of conscience and access to butter.

It was also reported that "cell-like fossils" were found in the Orgueil meteorite. However, further analysis proved these to be nothing more than hexagonal crystals of troilite or ferrous sulphide--not the unmistakable evidence of life. The same troilite mineral is reportedly present in the current "meteorite from Mars".

Given this background, it's easy to be a little suspicious of the current hullabaloo--particularly given NASA's interest in increased funding for the exploration of Mars. The Viking lander program to test the Martian soil for signs of life was conducted in 1972. The results of that experiment were said to be "inconclusive". (More objective scientists said the planet was, and always has been, sterile.) This fall, to mark the 25th anniversary of the Viking program, the space agency is launching another robotic exploration of Mars. This time, the mission will focus on searching for fossil life in regions where water was believed to have once stood.

What a stroke of fortunate timing for NASA that the meteorite discovered in Antarctica in 1984 has been declared to be Martian in origin. A government spokesman says President Clinton "may propose adding resources to ongoing NASA projects" to study the question of fossil life on Mars. "Adding resources" is political talk for spending more money. Only a rocket scientist could conclude on the basis of chemistry that the "life-bearing meteorite" is from Mars. But then, only a rocket scientist could find a way to use such a ÒdiscoveryÓ for fundraising.

The words of Louis Pasteur clearly identify the bottom line of this entire exercise--an attempt to explain the origin of life without a Creator. Placing that origin outside planet Earth neatly places it beyond reach of man's inquiry, allowing it to become yet another article of faith for evolutionists.

Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men, is president of the Bible-Science Association. This article distributed by Evangelical Press News Service.


Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 36, No. 3 Home Page