Have you noticed the hype, the hysterical overtones in the press when they report discovery of "biological molecules" in the Martian meteorite that could have been produced by biological processes? Couldn't find out from their articles about what the heck do they call "biological molecules" and not one of them could ever admit that all of the mentioned substances can be produced by both biological and non-biological processes. By the way, the shape of the
"biological molecules" hardly resembles the ones that they claim they are similar to. But so what? This doesn't seem to be important, doesn't seem to bother anybody. Discovering remains or traces of life on Mars has been predicted by Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross by the end the 80's.

Some of the hysterical assumptions we read in the press:

• If we find traces of life on Mars then it has to be a product of evolution

• If we find it there then it must have started on Mars

• If life is so "dense" (found on at least two planets of our solar system), then it is very likely that the Galaxy and countless other galaxies are just swarming with life. This is already building on the other two assumptions that are faulty...

Some highlights:

• if a meteorite can transport samples of Mars' surface to Earth, then a similar event could occur and transport matter from here to there....

• we have known for decades that all kind of airborne minute life escapes our planet's atmosphere and can be easily picked up by the solar wind and "blown away" from Earth (away from the Sun) - meaning that it would travel away from the Earth's orbit towards Mars' orbit (which is further from the Sun than Earth's).

• if we have trouble (have never observed it) figuring out how could life "happen by itself" on Earth then it should be a troubling thought that someone must have a strong agenda in trying to convince us about something like life starting on Mars - with its atmospheric pressure of just hundredths of Earth's, low temperatures and (since hardly any atmosphere) nasty radiation of all kinds. Even if we want to assume that the Red Planet was much much more "cozy" long time ago, then some questions still remain: how "cozy" was it, and if we don't see the spontaneous generation of life on Earth in process then how did it happen there?

Heavy case of a selective blindness to the facts.

Of course, if we, suddenly, show signs of a selective amnesia, forget about many well-known facts and remember only things that prove our reasoning (doesn't it sound like the world, the reality of politics?) then we can claim about anything we want. It would be kinda o.k. with some laymen, but it is definitely not when we talk about scientists (they are supposed to know what they are talking about, right?). Some even have gone so far as to claim publicly (Fuller Seminary professor on TV) that the "discovery of remains of life on Mars" would certainly disturb literal interpretation of the Bible. The question is: HOW?! And if a professor, a scientist, or any person of any prominence, makes such a claim then I get very suspicious. Do some "people of science" out there have other agenda there than going about real science, scientific truth and any kind of honest research? "Doing science" to prove Bible wrong? But that's not science...