A creationist angle on ALH84001 October 23, 2010Posted by Simon in Uncategorized.
Here’s a new angle on the ALH84001 debate – inspired by Nick’s blog, I thought I’d look into what creationists think of the ALH84001 controversy. The most interesting response is here, from Brisbane’s very own Creation Ministries International.
It’s fairly comprehensive, and (to their credit) has lots of links to original research in the journals. After discussing some 2001 research by David McKay’s team that expanded on their initial 1996 research, the author (Jonathan Sarfati) says, under the heading “Just how conclusive is this, and what should creationists think?”:
We should certainly wait till more evidence comes in. Many times, evolutionists have triumphantly announced ‘proofs’ of evolution or something else against the Christian world view, and the secular media uncritically gave them headline status.
Much the same headlines erupted about ALH84001 in August 1996, and gullible skeptics gloated over the supposed demise of Christianity, and compromising theologians bent over backwards to accommodate their ‘Christian’ faith (which was already far removed from the Bible by accommodation to evolution/billions of years) to these ‘discoveries’.
But all the ‘proof’ presented back then has been almost universally discounted. For example, there is almost certain proof that the amino acids found in ALH84001 were the result of contamination from Earth, and other ‘nanofossils’ were merely inanimate magnetite whiskers plus artefacts of transmission microscopy (TEM). Of course, the humanist-dominated media and assorted ‘skeptics’ didn’t give the retraction anywhere near the same publicity.
In one sense, it’s not that much different from any analysis that concludes ALH84001 doesn’t contain signs of life, although it’s sprinkled with phrases like:
Since evolutionists claim that Mars is the same age as Earth (4.5 billion years old), that leaves precious little time for evolution to have produced relatively advanced forms of life that could photosynthesize or navigate by magnetism.
Evolutionists frequently use common structures to ‘prove’ a common ancestry (although a common designer would explain them better), so it’s difficult to believe that almost identical structures evolved independently on different places with vastly different environments.
Probably the most striking thing is how enthusiastically the author supports legitimate scientific research that argues against signs of life in ALH84001, but fails to see how that same research is entirely inconsistent with a 6,000 year old earth, which is the viewpoint of Creation Ministries International.
I also was hoping to find some discussion of what creationists should think if it turns out that there *are* signs of life in ALH84001, but I guess that’s pushing my luck.