Reading an article entitled Intelligent Life Can’t Really Exist Anywhere Else, by Caroline Delbert.
It’s her take on an Oxford scientific study that seems to assert it is improbable intelligent life like our own could exist anywhere else, that because of its complex nature, we may actually be alone in the universe.
In newly published research from Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, scientists study the “likelihood of key times for evolution of life on Earth” and conclude that it would be virtually impossible for that life to evolve this same way somewhere else.
In other words, life is so complex that it is highly unlikely the right combination of events could re-occur more than once. We, the study says, are a mere cosmic accident.
Delbert dubiously asks, “How, in an infinitely big universe, can we be the only intelligent life we’ve ever encountered? Even on Earth itself, they wonder, how are we the only species that ever has evolved advanced intelligence?”
Delbert qualifies the study, “…the researchers include mathematical ecologists, who do a kind of forensic mathematics of Earth’s history.”
Have you ever heard of a mathematical ecologist? Neither have I.
Apparently there isn’t a math problem they can’t solve, except the one that counts, the one that explains how we got here, or why we are so smart?
The premise of the Oxford study seems simple: Life as we know it is rare because it is random, too many things would have to happen in order for our kind of intelligence to appear. And that is the assumption, that life is random, there is no greater cause that could cause us, so therefore, it could only happen once.
The hubris of the research illustrates the conundrum that always faces scientists when they attempt to solve the answer of life with only measurable facts of what they know, and then determine that what they know are the complete facts. Sounds fairly close to magic. If I believe it, it must be true.
For example, we think the universe came into being 14.5 billion years ago because we can only see 14.5 billion light years with our telescopes; there are no stars older (or farther away) than 14.5 billions years, therefore our answer is correct.
Based on that singular theory we assume what we know is true, that is until something else comes along and shows us otherwise, like stronger telescopes, or different methods of energy measurement.
The study, however, seems to answer its own question by stating the proposition as fact, that life is too complex to just ‘start on its own accord,’ The study, and the author of the article, fail to take the second logical step in asking the questions’ premise, which is to ask, “if life didn’t happen on accident, what else could cause it (or us) to appear?
No scientist worth his or her salt would dare admit that they have proven that life is NOT random, and yet by their own testimony, the study proves life is not accidental and intelligent life is likely NOT the result of accidental causation, therefore, our universe is causational since it can be shown to produce life capable of intelligence.
Science has checkmated itself.
Consider the following statement from my favorite book, the Urantia Book on this very subject.
(All excerpts from Urantia Book Paper 195, Section 7 on Materialism)
…To say that mind “emerged” from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon.
…Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial.
…The finite universe of matter would eventually become uniform and deterministic but for the combined presence of mind and spirit. The influence of the cosmic mind constantly injects spontaneity into even the material worlds.
…The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe.
…If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.
…If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify, nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could be executed only by some entity of supermachine status.
…If universe reality is only one vast machine, then man must be outside of the universe and apart from it in order to recognize such a fact and become conscious of the insight of such an evaluation.
…If man is only a machine, by what technique does this man come to believe or claim to know that he is only a machine? The experience of self-conscious evaluation of one’s self is never an attribute of a mere machine. A self-conscious and avowed mechanist is the best possible answer to mechanism. If materialism were a fact, there could be no self-conscious mechanist. It is also true that one must first be a moral person before one can perform immoral acts.
“The scientist, not science, perceives the reality of an evolving and advancing universe of energy and matter. The artist, not art, demonstrates the existence of the transient morontia world intervening between material existence and spiritual liberty. The religionist, not religion, proves the existence of the spirit realities and divine values which are to be encountered in the progress of eternity. “
Human beings are extremely arrogant, proven over and over by those who think they have outwitted cosmology, or make the false assertion that God (or intelligence beyond our own) simply doesn’t exist.
This latest article proves it is the scientist, and the not science, that has it wrong about the origins and purpose of life, nor do they exhibit even a clear understanding of the propagation of life, which must ultimately be more than man being a mere mathematical equation.