I was reading through the news today and came across this article in the Christian Science Monitor. I generally find this to be an insightful source of reporting from a mundane point of view, but this article: NASA discovers instellar ‘chocolate’ is a real shocker.

It begins by stating:

To solve the mystery of life’s origin, scientists can no longer focus solely on Earth. They must take the entire universe into account. Reason: the discovery of nitrogen-carrying aromatic hydrocarbons throughout the universe.

It then goes on to report, in a matter-of-fact tone, complete speculation. The words are all there: “This is complete speculation”, but the whole thing is reported in such a way that you are left with the impression that you are hearing about facts, rather than fantasy.

One example of this:

The finding has profound significance for the occurrence of organic life. These kinds of molecules are key ingredients in the primordial chemical soup from which scientists think organic life may have arisen.

I’m sorry, does it have profound significance, or do they think it has profound significance, or do they think it might have profound significance?

The first sentence is what sticks with you, because that’s the authoritative newspaper reporting right there, guiding you to the conclusion. The next sentence however, does not back that conclusion up.

The entire article is like that. The premises are all there, and all speculative, but they are juxtaposed with definite, concrete conclusions. It’s a mess.

In fact, you don’t even need a planet to get the organic-life game going.

says the CSM conclusively. The basis for this statement? Well it’s right there below:

“This new work shows that the early chemical steps believed to be important for the origin of life do not require a previously formed planet to occur,” the Ames announcement explains.

Speculation. No observation of life coming from inanimate matter. No reproducible lab experiments. Nothing more than speculation so far, from a scientific point of view.

The scientists themselves use terms like “may”, “believe”, “think”, but the CSM reports it with more conviction than they do. Does the CSM have a doctrinal axe to grind here?

Perhaps the article should have been entitled: “NASA discovers interstellar ‘chocolate’ - CSM discovers origin of life”

I’ve written a letter to the editor. Let’s see what they say.