More Than Water Is Required for Life

A New Habitable Zone Discovered

The other day I saw an interesting article posted on PHYS.org entitled "More To Life Than The Habitable Zone." The "Habitable Zone" is the area around a star where a planet may exist with water in all three states. This is crucial for life's existence. In the article the team of scientists studying a particular star for habitable planets recognizes that the zone where water can exist is not the only area that limits where a life-destined planet may be found. The scientists explain that another factor that further limits that "habitable zone" is the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted from the host star. Similar to the water habitable zone, the UV habitable zone is the area where the UV radiation is within the maximum and minimum bounds that permits life to exist. Both zones are necessary, so the only area where life can exist is the area where the two zones overlap each other. This area is so tiny that the team of scientists conclude that while a large portion of stars (red dwarfs) scientists have been investigating for habitable worlds are not completely off the table, it would be more prudent for scientists to focus efforts on the relatively few stars that more closely match our sun. Such a star would allow, presumably, for a larger overlapping area of the water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone.

Narrowing the Options

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe describes these two habitable zones in his latest book "Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home." He also describes three other habitable zones that have been discovered. Not only is earth located in the water habitable zone and the UV habitable zone, but zones for photosynthesis, ozone, and tides also exist. This means that not only must the water and UV zones overlap, these other three must overlap as well. The only areas where overlap of all five exists are where a planet must exist around its host star to be a candidate for life.

A quick internet search reveals that red dwarfs make up roughly 70% of the stars in the universe. If the team of astrobiologists are saying that the recognition of just one more habitable zone limits the candidate sites in the universe (practically rules out an entire class of stars) by 70%, then how much more will the recognition of these extra three zones limit the possible locations for life? Even though research is revealing a more precise target for where life can exist (thus focusing expensive research time and resources), the number of physical locations available for life to originate are being dramatically reduced. While the universe is huge and scientists already recognize that the majority of it is not viable for life's existence (nowhere near a star), this team of scientists has ruled out 70% of the space already left.

But that's not all. To further focus our research efforts (but reduce the areas for life), two more (non-location) habitable zones exist: the planet's rotation rate and obliquity. Each of these affect the other five zones in different ways, so while one zone may be widened or move closer to the star, another may be narrowed or move further from the star. When the planet's rotation rate and obliquity are taken into account as well, the actual area where a planet may exist and support life becomes even smaller or disappears completely for even more stars.

An Ancient Universe and Evidence for Design

As research continues, the history of our planet is becoming more of a problem for anyone who thinks that life is ubiquitous in the universe. Not only that, the more research continues, the more the history of our planet resembles a complicated project executed for a purpose- a project that includes numerous phases with numerous concurrent and necessary events that, if not started and finished at the proper time, would doom the project to failure. The longer the history of our planet, the longer the project and the more of these complicated phases there are. While many people think that an ancient universe provides naturalists a legitimate reason to deny the need for a Designer, the evidence provided by this ancient universe is revealing the exact opposite: that a Designer is necessary to explain why our planet and its history appear to be designed. The ancient universe is quickly becoming an unstoppable evidential force, declaring the glory of its Creator (Psalm 19:1) and leaving educated unbelievers with even less excuse for rejection (Romans 1).

Dr. Hugh Ross has also posted on this discovery: Inability of Planets Orbiting Red Dwarfs

To Go Deeper, I Recommend These Books:

Charlie Gard- A Battle For Life Has Been Lost, But That is Not the End

It is a sad and heart-wrenching day for Charlie Gard, his parents, and humanity. If you've been following my blog for the last few weeks, you know that I've been following Charlie's fight for the chance to live (here and here). When he was born eleven months ago, we was diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disease that left him unable to move or breathe on his own. In the last couple months, the hospital treating him in the United Kingdom decided to cut life-support because there was nothing they could do, but the parents wanted to transport him to the United States for an experimental treatment. The saga played out in the United Kingdom court system with the judge agreeing with the doctors. Several foreign doctors and hospitals offered to transport and treat Charlie free of cost, but the request was denied by the court. After an international outcry, the judge finally ordered an MRI scan on Charlie to determine the feasibility of success with the experimental treatment. The US doctor evaluating the scan announced yesterday that the "window of opportunity" for a greater than 10% chance of success had been missed. This caused Charlie's parents to lose all hope and finally give up their fight for their son's life, and they will be spending his last days with at his bedside.

I cannot help but see that the reason the window of opportunity was missed is because the doctors and judge were so bent on seeing Charlie's death that they intentionally stalled any and all treatment and tests. This window could have been discovered and action taken within it had the doctors not resisted the choice of the parents with the power of the government behind them. The doctors at that hospital could have avoided the whole moral and legal battle and emotional pain of the parents (and the world) had they allowed their international peers to do what they solemnly sore to do (protect the life of their patients- see the Hyppocratic Oath). In that refusal, these doctors violated the Hyppocratic Oath, themselves. But they have not only violated an oath to the medical community and to the public, but they have violated the Image of God. In refusing to recognize the intrinsic worth of their patient, they saw him as expendable and not worth the cost of the resources it would require to save him. This is the result of such a denial. In a medical world that is devoid of the understanding of intrinsic human worth, every patient will enter a facility with a dead line and a price tag; if either are exceeded, the project (patient) will be scrapped.

As Americans, who enjoy freedom based upon our intrinsic worth "endowed by our Creator," we must do all that we can to prevent such a medical world from crossing the Atlantic. As Christians, we need to be there for Charlie's parents to support them in every way we possibly can for the rest of their lives. This is a wound that will not heal with time. This is an evil that cuts to the very heart of what it means to be human. Charlie's parents know this, and they have sworn that they will do all that they can to prevent other parents from having to experience such horrendous pain at the hands of those who are supposed to protect them (physicians and the government). As the Church, we need to support them. We need to see that Charlie and his parents have not suffered needlessly at the hands of evil men. We need to protect the Image of God; we need to defend life.

What men intended for evil, God intended for good (Genesis 50:20). We are created in God's Image, so we can do the same. Let us choose to turn this evil on its head, and show the world the love and hope of Christ and the reasons we have them (1 Peter 3:15), so that this finite suffering cannot compare to the infinite glory that will be revealed through eternal life (Romans 8:18). This particular battle for a life may have been lost, but the war for eternal life through Jesus Christ will be won.

Let us support Charlie's parents and defend life:

Apple CEO Tim Cook on Purpose and Ethics in Technology

Introduction

For MIT's (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 2017 graduation, Apple Computers' CEO Tim Cook was asked to give the commencement speech. As a fellow information technologist, I wanted to see what he would say to the next generation of technological engineers. He provided an inspiring speech that encouraged the graduating students to pursue a career in technology because technology can serve the higher purpose of humanity. You can watch the full speech on YouTube.

Tim Cook's Speech

Cook began with this: "When you work towards something greater than yourself, you find meaning; you find purpose." He said that he had searched for a higher purpose in his life; he tried many things, including religion. He then spoke of the value and importance of humanity and how technology is improving life. He told a story of one of his Apple shareholders' meetings where he explained to one shareholder that his company's focus was not necessarily on the ROI (return on investment) of a technology but that its focus was "the right thing to do." He also stated that while some people fear artificial intelligence's becoming more human-like, his concern was the humanity's thinking was becoming more machine-like: devoid of values, compassion, and concern for consequences. He concluded with "There is so much on the internet to make you cynical...do not get caught up in the trivial things of life...stay focused on what really matters."

In the speech, Cook made sure to mention the importance of the humanities to the science and math graduates. I am glad that Cook values the humanities. I value them as well, including philosophy. Unfortunately, several philosophical problems arise when the claims in his speech are investigated more deeply. I would like to make the point that his comments about Apple's disregarding the ROI of technologies make it clear that he is not making subjective (opinion) claims, rather he is making claims that are objectively true for everyone- they are true whether anyone believes them or not. He believes that his and his company's valuing of ROI over human life would be objectively wrong. In order for any of his claims to be objectively true and have any meaning outside of the individual, the different claims must all have a grounding in reality, but he mentioned at the beginning of his speech that he rejected the only source for such grounding. Let's see what the implications of such rejection are.