A Logical Leap

Opportunity and Curiosity Rock Abrasion ToolsFor Wednesday Jason Lisle provides a surprisingly up-to-the-minute article, Washing Machines on Mars, opening:

Several news outlets yesterday heralded early reports from NASA that the Curiosity rover on Mars has found evidence that the red planet could have supported primitive life.

Lisle cites three headlines: NASA: Yes, Mars could have hosted life; Mars had the right stuff for life, scientists find; and Wow! Ancient Mars Could Have Supported Primitive Life, NASA Says. If you haven’t heard the news you should probably go read one or two of those. Where do washing machines come in to it?

To make a point, Lisle writes a paragraph of his own for a slightly different news article:

The Mars rover Curiosity once again pushes forward the frontiers of science. The rover has the ability to drill holes in Martian rocks, and to chemically analyze the resulting powder. Such an analysis has recently revealed that Martian rocks contain the following chemicals: sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and carbon. The significance? These are all elements found in washing machines and laundry detergent. Yes, it seems that conditions on ancient Mars were just right for the existence of operational washing machines!

He says:

Aside from the concluding sentence, the above paragraph is entirely true. Curiosity did find these elements on Mars (they are fairly common elements in the universe). And indeed, such elements are used whenever someone does a load of laundry. But few scientists would draw the conclusion that washing machines once populated the surface of Mars.

The reason is simple. It is fallacious to assume the existence of a complex structure on the basis of the mere existence of its raw material. In addition, there is no organizing principle on Mars or informational instructions by which such basic elements could be naturally organized into something as complicated as a washing machine.

The “organizing principle” line is a curiousity – what does Lisle mean by it? Does that include natural selection, I wonder? He adds that life is made of many of the same chemicals as washing machines, before concluding:

So why do we see news articles concluding that Mars possibly had life on the basis that it has some of the same elements? If we wouldn’t conclude that there were probably washing machines on Mars, then why would we infer the existence of something far more complex and intricate?

It’s not hard to see that Lisle’s point falls down when you realise that nobody (or, at least, nobody linked to by Lisle – we should be careful with absolutes here) is saying that this proves there was life on Mars. Simply saying that it was possible based on this result isn’t a problem.

To use Lisle’s washing machine analogy, this is like finding that the conditions of ancient Mars were such that a washing machine would not spontaneously combust or otherwise immediately be destroyed, and would be able to function. The discovery is, in fact, closer to determining that Mars once had powered wall sockets and running water. In that situation headlines like “Wow! Ancient Mars Could Have Supported Washing Machines, NASA Says,” “Mars had the right stuff for washing machines, scientists find,” and “NASA: Yes, Mars could have hosted washing machines” would all be technically accurate. The important difference is that nobody is seriously proposing that “washing machines once populated the surface of Mars,” but life is a real possibility.

5 thoughts on “A Logical Leap

  1. But this is the standard creationist move of comparing apples and bananas via a straw man argument the sad fact is that 60% of Americans fall for it.
    Or is it a vast Islamic/Communist plot to eventually ruin scientific thought in America?
    Maybe that’s the answer to Creationism; start a rumour that its really an anti American conspiracy.

  2. http://www.icr.org/article/7381/
    “…there is no organizing principle on Mars…”.

    So God was not present on Mars, only upon Earth – where clearly the ‘organizing principle’ created life (not merely humanity but life in all its rich variety, both ‘simple’ and highly complex life, and including all the forms that have gone extinct).

    Or have I misunderstood the creationist spin cycle?

  3. I am not in an any way a Creationist but I had problems with the NASA statement too.

    Why connect life to Mars at all unless you have actually found evidence for life? Actually the fact that the evidence that Mars could have supported life and the absence of evidence that it did is problematic. Of course, we may eventually find evidence of actual life but until we do it would be best not to make any connection.

    • Actuall it’s more complicated than that. Even before the modern version of creationism took hold there was debate about whether it was feasible for life to exist anywhere but on this planet. Discovering that there are other planets and that one of them, Mars, had the potential to evolve and support life is important. Without it there would be too much pressure to stop even considering the possibility -and not only form creationists.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s