Why Do We Trust Scientists Only When They Agree with Us?

This is an old question familiar to readers of the Nicotine Theological Journal (please don’t make me find the issue), but Tim Challies’ “like” of Rick Phillips’ post about evolution reminded me of that query. It concerns the degree to which Christians (especially conservative Protestants) have no difficulty with scientific results when it comes to the believers’ own prejudices. Think tobacco and alcohol (but not too long). Back in the day of the fundamentalist controversy and for three decades beyond, physicians who are known for having some scientific training regularly recommended the health benefits of smoking. Now we know scientifically what fundamentalists always believed — that it hurts the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit (for the regenerate). In the matter of human vices, contrary to Harry Emerson Fosdick the fundamentalists won with a big boost from science and its practitioners.

So why the outright hostility to scientists in other realms of inquiry? I understand that theological difficulties attend an evolutionary account of human origins. And I am not meaning to suggest that the historicity of Adam or the fall are topics easily reconciled with biological science.

What I worry about, though, is a knee-jerk hostility to science on evolution that flies in the face of the very trust that we devote to any number of scientists — from the pharmacists who mix our pain relievers to the economists that tell us Ronald Reagan was right. (This is another one of those examples that pose difficulties for the advocates of w-w; w-w may explain Darwin but what about Jonas Salk?)

Can’t Christians show a little bit of gratitude?

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Why Do We Trust Scientists Only When They Agree with Us?

  1. Could it be the “brand” of science used to come up with evolutionary theory is very different animal than the kind used to develop, test, evaluate, and implement vaccination regimens? I’m not a scientist so it’s hard for me to say, but I’ve often wondered about whether many of the criticisms about evolution come from how those outside evolutionary science look in and don’t see much science (and a lot of philosophy) going on.

    Also, which scientist are you going to believe in this dogfight? Richard Dawkins or Michael Behe? It’s not like Science has put only one narrative up for us to evaluate here. On the vaccination side of things, is there reasonable and credible evidence that vaccines do not work? I know there’s people who claim they have side effects, but nobody disagrees as to their effectiveness, right?

    I guess different realms of scientific inquiry have different rules–or something.

    Like

  2. There is an epistemological competition between believing the scientist and believing the study. Slowly but surely, we seem to be moving towards the latter — for good reason.

    Even double-Nobel winners such as Linus Pauling are capable of putting out nonsense in areas outside of their expertise. In Pauling’s case, it was “Vitamin C cures cancer.”

    Likewise in medicine, the reigning paradigm up through the eighties was to believe the doctor. Now, we look to “evidence-based medicine.”

    The difficulty we have in several areas of science is that they are still stuck in the “trust the expert” model. E.g.: “I’m a climate scientist, so shut up.”

    It is a really different thing to put numbers on the table and invite someone to consider what they mean, as opposed to put on a white cloak and demand trust.

    Like

  3. Why Do We Trust Scientists Only When They Agree with Us?

    We trust “wise men” in order to “be sure” and yet consider our own self to be the ultimate wise man – ergo…

    I’m sure there’s an Old Testament verse to support my wisdom… 😉

    Like

  4. Brad, I’m more with RC than Tim:

    I don’t know how old the earth is. I didn’t know then. I still don’t.

    As regards the age of the earth. Although I know what I was taught at my university, I usually just keep quiet, and point to the OPC creation report. I hear your denom has a pretty good report on the matter, too.

    Peace.

    Like

  5. Some Christians act like they received a science degree along with the Holy Spirit. My personal policy, I leave the science stuff to the scientists (Christian or otherwise). That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a historical Adam, but it does mean that I don’t claim to know (or care about) the age of the earth.

    Like

  6. Brad, you left out the good part:

    The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

    I thought Canadians were smarter than Americans.

    Like

  7. Darryl, thanks for the post (see!?! gratitude : ) )

    Here is something your readers may enjoy finding and browsing around in, while we are on the topic. Because this guy

    I am employed as a Natural Resources Specialist with a focus on Geographic Information Systems (GIS)…

    does have a dog I accept an old age for the universe (perhaps about 13-15 billion years) and for the Earth (about 4.6 billion years). I acknowledge that God created the universe, and has sustained and sovereignly ruled over it ever since. I have Christian friends whom I love and respect with whom I differ on these things.

    My qualifications for writing this blog about science, the environment, and Christianity include:

    M.S. degree in Geology from Washington State University
    B.S. degree in Earth Science from Montana State University
    Teaching certificate in Chemistry from University of Missouri-St. Louis
    Additional schooling: University of Utah, Missouri Baptist College, Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA)
    Almost six years of service as a missionary/teacher with ReachGlobal (Evangelical Free Church of America)
    Membership in the Geological Society of America, the American Scientific Affiliation, and the Affiliation of Christian Geologists

    in the fight.

    Like

  8. I guess for me it’s a question of which scientists I’m trusting or not and what I’m trusting (or not) them about. There are any number of PhD’s in all branches of science that do not hold to evolutionary origins. There are also a great number of PhD’s who are young earth creationists. Why do I need to distrust them simply because another group of scientists disagree?

    Like

  9. This issue seems to come up in a circadian matter, wasn’t it winter last year there was the whole Ham / Nye debate (which I totally didn’t watch, what a waste of time..).

    Like

  10. *circadian manner
    *sorry for mixing my “AB” and my “Andrew” handle (planning to use my given name henceforth, fyi..)

    or metaxas earlier this year

    Like

  11. Also, in science, as in most academic fields, there are often disagreements and differing viewpoints. To put your question into theological terms, why do we only trust those theologians who we agree with? Why is there an open hostility towards Roman Catholic or liberal theologians?

    Like

  12. RGM, because conservative Protestants, liberals, and RC’s are working on the same material. It’s like biologists disagreeing about carbon emissions. But me objecting to biology is like a biologist questioning a book I write on the history of American Presbyterianism.

    Like

  13. Jesse, thanks for that, but I think the author is an evangelical who sees joy and togetherness wherever she wants (with dogs).

    Anyway, I don’t doubt that cats are aloof, moody, and unresponsive. Do we really need objects of affection to be eager and willing? That’s not what we expect or receive from spouses.

    Like

  14. Machen replied that science, philosophy, and religion all dealth with precisely the same thing-facts. Either persons saw the facts correctly or they did not. Hence, contrary to Mullins’s view, only one philosophy could be true. False science and philosophy resulted when sin obscured the facts or led one to accept naturalistic presuppositions that excluded some of the facts. So, said Machen, “We ought to try to lead scientists and philosophers to become Christians not by asking them to regard science and philosophy as without bearing upon religion, but on the contrary asking them to beomce more sceintific and more philosophical through attention to all, instead of some, of the facts.” Source

    Like

  15. I suspect a lot of it is familiarity. Lots of conservative protestants know a doctor at church…maybe he’s an elder or deacon. It’s harder to dismiss “medical science” when the face of medical science is your Sunday School teacher. Most Christians have never met an astronomer (at least outside of the astro101 class at university), paleontologist, or evolutionary biologist. For one, there aren’t many around and among them very few are Christians. The image they have is Dawkins or Sagan rather that nice MD who teaches Sunday School.

    Additionally modern scientific theories requires a lot of technical knowledge most people simply can’t be expected to learn on the side. This means that the case for climate change, cosmology, evolution, etc… ultimately comes down to trust. This is one reason why I think religious, racial, geographic, political, etc… diversity is important.

    Like

  16. @RGM there are also PhDs who advocate a geocentric solar system. Among the science community, I’m not so.sure they have any less credibility than YECs.

    Like

  17. Just finished Monk’s bio on Oppenheimer.

    The race for thermonuclear capabilities involved questions of not only “can we make it work” but also “should we do this in the first place” and “if we make it work, how should we handle it”.

    The second question was highly important for answering the first question.

    Like

  18. sdb, but given how many conservative Protestants are college educated and even Christian colleges do not teach a young earth, it is odd that these Christians are so opposed to biology. I suspect w-w.

    Like

  19. It isn’t just scientists, we distrust anyone whose thinking challenges us to change from what we are either use to or love. It isn’t that all change is good. It is that when change is implied or stated explicitly, it triggers a hostile reaction in us.

    Like

  20. Darryl,

    sdb, but given how many conservative Protestants are college educated and even Christian colleges do not teach a young earth, it is odd that these Christians are so opposed to biology. I suspect w-w.

    I’ve had several discussions with a friend about this matter of the age of the earth and why the conservative Reformed so often, in many circles, are knee-jerk young earth, six literal days, Ham said it, I believe it, that settles it types. We’ve wondered if it might be because there has been a rejection of a traditional Reformed view of natural revelation and an embrace of a non-Reformed hermeneutic. So in that respect, I think it is a worldview issue, but maybe not in the way you mean it. A more historically Reformed worldview that says natural revelation gives the truth about the matters it was designed to reveal apart from Scripture is going to be more open to science that disagrees with first-glance readings of Scripture than a more fundamentalistic worldview that says the Bible is a science book.

    I honestly don’t know enough about science to deal with a lot of these issues. The young earth position has always seemed a bit odd to me. Creation with the appearance of age can only go so far. I can understand that Adam might have looked 18 even though he was only one day old, but why do the rocks have to look so old? But in any case, I don’t know why so many Christians, Reformed or otherwise, think they are qualified to judge scientific findings based on a certain reading of Genesis when they would never judge the findings of medicine, accounting, or any other discipline. Maybe it is because that evolution has posed a threat to Christianity in a way that other theories have not, but even so, it escapes me why people cannot separate out the age of the earth and the philosophical theory of naturalism. The two don’t require one another, contra AIG.

    Like

  21. Curt, that’s true, because when confronted with new information that causes us to readjust our preconceived notions, it’s psychologically more work to do just that. We prefer to dig in our heels, even when we are wrong, because we are unsure of just how much work is involved in making a readjustment in our worldview (we all have one).

    Like

  22. Robert, my suspicions have always been that it’s a continuation of the old modernist debates from the early 20thC, IOW less to do with science than with culture/politics/worldview. What if there had never been a monkey trial?

    Like

  23. Robert, I think it has to do with the influx of people from fundamentalism (like me) who find the reformed faith later in life.

    The appearance of age thesis is way way flawed. To me, it makes God into a liar or some sort of trickster. As Bob Newhart says, “no, no, we don’t go there..”.

    Like

  24. We need to consider carefully what the definition of “science” is. While in college, I was a mathematics major (I have a masters degree), but I also took a fair number of chemistry and physics classes. Please understand that I am not in any way qualified to discourse on the philosophy of science, but, as I recall, most introductory science courses stress the experimental nature of the area and the importance of verifying the results of others and making predictions concerning future experimental results. This is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to apply to the area of macroevolutionary “science.” The foundation of much of geological study and Darwin’s Origin of Species is the presupposition that the only processes which took place in the past are the ones we can currently observe. With a little thought, it’s clear that anything supernatural is off the table. Philip Johnson, in his book Darwin on Trial, discusses this at length and make it clear that much, but perhaps not all, of evolutionary science is a matter of philosophy (or religion, if you prefer) rather than true science. Facts are facts, but the interpretation of those facts depends very much on our presuppositions, and as Biblical Christians, our primary task is to make sure that we understand God’s words correctly.

    For those who are interested concerning the age of the earth, I would suggest The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder, which presents an interesting perspective on how to reconcile the six days of creation with what appears to be a very old universe. I am more than willing to confess that I am completely unqualified to confirm or refute Dr. Schroeder’s thesis, but it is very interesting. I would welcome any comments from those who have some expertise in Hebrew as to Dr. Schroeder’s explanations.

    Like

  25. This is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to apply to the area of macroevolutionary “science.”

    There is on such thing as “macro”evolutionary science. Interestingly enough, Darwin predicted an interrelatedness among species that would connect taxonomic classifications to genetics. The sequencing of the genome has confirmed a remarkably bold prediction. One might want to come up with a counter explanation for that confirmation, but that can be done for any prediction. More importantly, evolutionary principles are being used for all kinds of applications (from development of AI to drug design). It works – any theory you develop to supplant this paradigm has to account for all the disparate things the theory does for us. No one has done that yet and it is a big reason why no one is taking ID seriously. Even if their criticisms are right, their theory is useless.

    Like

  26. It appears where we left off with Dr. Clark in Feb 2014 was over macroevolution issues, whereby I was directed to a blog called bylogos

    Jerry Bridge
    February 22, 2014 @ 10:56 PM
    Hi Andrew,

    You have lots of questions and opinions to offer, including an opinion on ‘punctuated equilibrium’ which states that evolution happened so fast that nobody saw it happen.

    If you would like to take this up further, I’d invite you to visit this site, [bylogos(dot)blogspot(dot)com]. Feel free to search ‘Framework Theory’ there

    I haven’t yet looked around bylogos blogspot, maybe if i find time later. Anyway, I’m out, only an accountant here, with a desire to learn.

    Peace.

    Like

  27. kent, me too. following along with Darryl and you guys for the last 1.5 years has been a catalyst to finding better reading material. I was digging deep in the recesses of my mind to think where I find little nuggets that I’ve retained, that’s what my 32 year old brain could muster. anyway, good hearing from you.

    Like

  28. Curt, don’t go too far–there comes a time to shake the dust off one’s sandals and that can’t happen without the courage of convictions.

    Like

  29. Andrew, I could have used truly Reformed theology 30 plus years ago, but I guess we all have our paths of pilgrimage, helps encourage those who think they are fine spending 20 years on the on-ramp of Piperville to the superhighway of Calvin…

    Like

  30. There is nothing explicit in Genesis 1-3 to give me a pure time frame.

    You can believe what you want, but when you make it a hill to die on and an acid test prove another is regenerate only because they agree with whatever you have diced together (on creation, eschatology, how should we then live) then you are hurting others and often making a total ass of yourself with “the world.”

    Like

  31. The Discovery Institute shoots back:

    The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

    The mystery of the origin of life is unsolved and all existing theories of chemical evolution face major problems. Basic deficiencies in chemical evolution include a lack of explanation for how a primordial soup could arise on the early earth’s hostile environment, or how the information required for life could be generated by blind chemical reactions. As evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”

    Like

  32. DGH,

    As evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.”

    My wife in higher level physics classes for her science degree, in 2001, said the leading theory then was life most certainly came from some other planet. Of course, how did that life originate, is the next question. But I believe that’s probably what people are still thinking today? idk..Terry Gray is into astrobiology, per my latest interaction or two ago with him, let’s page him : )

    Like

  33. I never liked unpractical things in science. I wanted to study about guaranteed predictable reactions for blowing things up and other more kinder things…

    Like

  34. DGH:

    The short answer is yes, the attitude is self serving.

    Though I am struggling with your example a little bit. Maybe it’s because even though both evolution and vaccination can be filed under the broad heading of “science,” it’s really the political implications of each which causes us to look for skepticism opportunities. Nobody has a meaningful stake in vaccination science (except, say, Jenny McCarthy), so we can all just applaud the advancements and move on. But with evolution, as with climate science, the benchmarks of “progression” are harder to set, concrete knowledge is harder to secure, and what we are asked do with the information can be even more controversial.

    I’m wondering: is it that we start to retreat into self-serving skepticism only when somebody uses science as a tool to enforce on us what we “should do.” So maybe, again, it’s not the science that’s the issue, but the political agendas which use science to their own end.

    You are correct in your observation, I’m just trying to noodle out why and if’s really about the “science” or something appended on to it by the surrounding culture.

    Like

  35. The DI says that like it is a criticism. It sounds like a cool opportunity to me. Here are a few others

    But if it turns out we never solve the pre-biotic/biology boundary, what should we conclude?

    Like

  36. Agreed sdb.

    “The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.”

    God of the gaps anyone? Odd that they cite Pigliucci as an authority (not that such means he’s wrong) – he’s much more known for his work and focus on philosophy of science than biology. But it’s not as if DI has a rep for hard-hitting science anyways (cue the pitchforks about bias and insular academia).

    Like

  37. This might be the article:

    “Science and Its Discontents” 1:3 (Jul 1997)

    I can’t verify it since the NTJ back issues links aren’t working.

    Like

  38. David D., I am probably in agreement on this point, though it is useful to consider that some of the early leaders of the Dutch resisters who blossomed into neo-Calvinism were precisely opposed to vaccinations because based on godless science. I believe Isaac De Costa was a physician who was in the intellectual circle surrounding Van Prinsterer. I remember reading about this while working on Calvinism.

    And of course science now has lots of authority (many times political). So the suspicion is partly political. But has any serious Christian refused to go to a physician because credentialed and licensed by the same government that brought you public schooling?

    Like

  39. Zrim,
    In terms of convictions, what Kenny Rodgers sang is appropriate and I am saying this as someone who doesn’t like his music:

    You gotta know when hold them,
    know when to fold them.

    Convictions should always be tested.

    Like

  40. Scott, and thank YOU for directing my attention to that article, driving me to want to look for it. It was a good re-read.

    Peace.

    Like

  41. Andrew, no commonly held origin of life theory, yet… Very different from evolutionary theory in general for which there is a broad consensus. I’m partial to the ideas of Stuart Kauffman. He speaks of natural processes that give rise to increasing complexity in molecular composition eventually giving rise to an autocatalytic network. The property of autocatalysis arises unpedictably and suddenly.

    Like

  42. “Pwogress, our most important pwoduct”. Bugs Bunny

    First there was Scientism Science, then the theory ofEvolution, now vaccines?
    (No mention of course, of Joseph Lister).

    Or plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

    Like

  43. I admit I’m a scientific layman, but I find the standard evolutionary story uncompelling on both logical and scientific grounds. (Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial” does a good job, imo, of exposing the logical fallacies and tautologies employed in defense of the Darwin story, and while I haven’t fully read it yet, Dr. Stephen Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” seems to make a strong scientific case against it and for “Intelligent Design”.)

    It also seems to me that a proper exegesis of Genesis 2:7 favors the view that Adam was formed by a direct, immediate, supernatural act of God, and thus it would be difficult to harmonize the biblical account of man’s origin with the notion of Adam having animal ancestry, and especially difficult to harmonize with contemporary scientific theories favoring polygenesis.

    At the same time, I think the OPC General Assembly erred in the Terry Gray case, the verdict in effect setting a precedent for bringing charges against and excluding from church office any man, no matter how orthodox and confessional and qualified he might otherwise be, who is sympathetic to belief in a theistic, providentially-guided evolutionary origin of man. While the OPC has always allowed (and continues to allow) various viewpoints on the interpretation of the creation days of Genesis One (ordinary day view, day age view, framework view, analogical day view, etc.) and various understandings of the age of the earth; at the same time in today’s OPC the great defender of biblical inerrancy and Presbyterian orthodoxy, Dr. B.B. Warfield, would likely not be approved for ordination in most OP Presbyteries.

    It seems to me that if a man is willing to confess the inerrancy of Scripture, creation ex nihilo, the literal historicity of Adam & Eve, a literal Fall event, the genuine historicity (as opposed to “theological history”) of the early chapters of Genesis, etc., then he should be regarded as being within the bounds of biblical and confessional orthodoxy, even if he is sympathetic toward believing in a theistically, providentially-guided evolutionary origin of man, and thus animal ancestry for Adam. (Dr. Gray confessed all of those biblical truths in his defense.)

    Maybe we in the OPC needs to rethink this matter. Unless we think the late Dr. Warfield was beyond the scope of confessional orthodoxy.

    Like

  44. Dr. Hart: What was Machen’s position on the issue of biological evolution and with respect to the view that Adam had animal ancestry? I understand that Machen, as a New Testament scholar, claimed no expertise on such questions. But didn’t he basically follow Warfield’s position of openness to the possibility of animal ancestry for Adam, and wasn’t he open to a theistically-guided evolutionary process?

    Like

  45. Geoff, I’ll leave your question to Dr. Hart, but just to say, I found some resources at the following link that might help get you thinking. I don’t endorse nor do I know anything of this blog:

    Also D. G. Hart and John Muether (both OPC ruling elders) contend that Warfield had no difficulty with evolution, as long as it was under God’s providence, and excepting the direct creation of Adam’s soul and Eve’s body (“Inerrancy and Design, Old Princeton and Evolution”, Ordained Servant Vol.9 (Jan, 2000): 4-6).

    Moreover, they note that Machen concurred with Warfield’s take on theistic evolution:
    “Machen merely continued in the tradition, denying atheistic explanations, while affirming Warfield’s view”.

    It is thus not surprising that Machen’s (1923) famous book Christianity and Liberalism makes no mention of evolution and that Machen turned down an invitation by William Jennings Bryan to testify against evolution at the famous Scopes trial in 1925.

    Hart and Muether seemingly approve of Warfield and Machen’s views. They link these to intelligent design and assess,
    “they offer a better opportunity for credibly engaging the scientific community and meaningfully defending the truth of Christianity than the one now promoted by scientific creationists.”

    http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/08/were-warfield-and-machen-reformed.html

    Like

  46. And hey, look, a Conference!

    Westminster Conference on Science and Faith
    Cosmos+Creator
    Upcoming Event
    March 20, 2015 – March 21, 2015
    Proclamation Presbyterian Church – Greater Philadelphia

    They probably won’t stream it live like last weekend’s annual WSCAL conference (awesome they did that, by the way), but they’ll make it available on DVD:

    Visit the Westminster Conference Series to purchase videos of past conferences.

    Like

  47. D.G. Hart: “Geoff, I hear you, but a young earth seems pretty far fetched.”

    I’m not YEC. (Used to be, but the Young and Stearley book “The Bible, Rock and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth” changed my thinking on this question.) I guess I could be described as a “progressive (old-earth) creationist.” I lean toward C. John Collins’ version of the “analogical day view” in terms of my understanding of the Genesis creation days.

    While the issues of the age of the earth and biological evolution are closely connected, they are separate issues. As you probably know, geologists (many of them devout, practicing Christians) had concluded that the earth was ancient many years before Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” hit the presses. Originally it was the scientists, not the theologians, who were the most critical of Darwin’s ideas.

    Like

  48. You’re welcome, Geoff, I was just googling around, so take any of it with the grain of salt that I intend it.

    From this OP officer out west, greetings, and have a nice weekend and Lord’s Day.

    Peace.

    Like

  49. D.G. Hart: “Geoff, my sense is that Machen was open (but not definite) to biological science the way his theological mentor, B B Warfield, was.”

    Thanks. That’s what I thought.

    By the way, if you are ever feeling curmudgeounly and want to spark some interesting discussions in OPC circles, why not write an article for “Ordained Servant” offering a reassessment of the 1996 Terry Gray case?

    Like

  50. And for any interested lurkers, I don’t think Dr. Gray would mind my posting this, which the last link is to his recantation.

    Peace.

    Like

  51. David D – I’m wondering: is it that we start to retreat into self-serving skepticism only when somebody uses science as a tool to enforce on us what we “should do.” So maybe, again, it’s not the science that’s the issue, but the political agendas which use science to their own end.

    Erik – e.g. climate science & global warming, which conveniently just happens to neatly fit into the entire Democratic Party Platform.

    Like

  52. Curt Day – It isn’t just scientists, we distrust anyone whose thinking challenges us to change from what we are either use to or love. It isn’t that all change is good. It is that when change is implied or stated explicitly, it triggers a hostile reaction in us.

    Erik – Kind of like how you flare up when anyone says anything bad about Karl Marx?

    Like

  53. Kent – You can believe what you want, but when you make it a hill to die on and an acid test prove another is regenerate only because they agree with whatever you have diced together (on creation, eschatology, how should we then live) then you are hurting others and often making a total ass of yourself with “the world.”

    Erik – Good stuff.

    Like

  54. Terry, if you are lurking, here’s some astrobiology news from NASA:

    NASA: We’ll find alien life in 10 to 20 years

    Are we alone in the universe? Top NASA scientists say the answer is almost certainly “no.”

    “I believe we are going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth in the next decade and definitive evidence in the next 10 to 20 years,” Ellen Stofan, chief scientist for NASA, said at a public panel Tuesday in Washington.

    “We know where to look, we know how to look, and in most cases we have the technology,” she said.

    Jeffery Newmark, interim director of heliophysics at the agency put it this way: “It’s definitely not an if, it’s a when.”

    However, if visions of alien invasions are dancing in your head, you can let those go.

    “We are not talking about little green men,” Stofan said. “We are talking about little microbes.”

    Over the course of an hourlong presentation, NASA leaders described a flurry of recent discoveries that suggest we are closer than ever to figuring out where we might find life in the solar system and beyond.

    continue reading here

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s