Greetings, mortals! Earlier today, scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy announced their finding that isopropyl cyanide, an organic molecule, is abundant in the interstellar medium. They made this "discovery" by observing the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) of radio telescopes to analyze the radiospectrometric signatures of the various molecules that make up the gas cloud.
While researchers have previously detected organic molecules in space, isopropyl cyanide is the first such organic molecule seen that has a branched carbon backbone. It, unlike any of those previously-observed molecules, is thus more like the amino acids that your sciences (incorrectly) believe form the building blocks of life here on Earth. Because the amino acids, like isopropyl cyanide, have a branched, carbon-based structure.
What's the significance of this? Well, if you believe life on Earth arose naturalistically, this finding strongly suggests that other branched carbon molecules -- including, possibly, amino acids themselves -- exist in abundance in space. That would further support the theory that life arose on Earth without any supernatural intervention because it means those building blocks were likely already present here on Earth and didn't have to form from simpler molecules under the right conditions.
In other words, if branched carbon molecules are abundant in space, they were likely abundant on Earth from its earliest days. And if that's true, the number of steps humans thought were needed to move from molecules present on Earth to the emergence of life decreases. It also increases the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the universe.
Said another way, given the existence of branched carbon organic molecules in space, the number of assumptions in the chemical synthesis-based hypotheses of abiogenesis goes down. And as scientists are always fond of telling us, the simpler a hypothesis is in relation to competing hypotheses, the more likely it's true.
Does this undermine Creation or Intelligent Design? No, of course not. First of all, if you want to blaspheme by calling Creation a hypothesis, it's the simplest hypothesis of all: God did it. You don't even need to assume anything (apart from the agency of a supernatural being of limitless power and eternal duration whose very existence is at variance with all available evidence, which evidence is consistent only with a naturalistic universe). QED.
Second, even if branched carbon organic molecules were abundant on Earth from its beginning, no one was around to see those molecules become self-replicating bases for all terrestrial life. That means abiogenesis can't be proven, which means, of course, abiogenesis must not be true. And if abiogenesis isn't true, then Creation must be, because it says so in the Bible. QED again!
If God Created all, why, then, are complex organic molecules present in interstellar space? Simple. As I said in my last post, God has been expanding the veil of Heaven to make sure human space exploration doesn't pierce through it. It's been a big project and something we had to do pretty quickly, so, well, there wasn't a lot of time to clean everything up.
Basically, the organic compounds you're seeing in space are the cast-off materials from Creation. It's the sawdust on the floor of God's workshop. That's all. There's no significance to it at all apart from being further proof that God Created all life on Earth.
So quit getting all excited about this, okay? Focus on something more important. Like praying, or figuring out better ways to rationalize the Bible into being literal truth. The salvation of your immortal soul is, after all, both incompatible with and more important than knowledge.
Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments below!