The Journal of Cosmology has boldly proclaimed that life from outer space has been found. Many have quickly and predictably shouted excitement at the discovery. We are told that this might be proof-positive evidence that life on Earth originated on other planets and came here via asteroids.

“We are not alone in the universe—and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought,” writes Fox News. “That’s the stunning conclusion one nasa scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology. … Other scientists tell FoxNews.com the implications of this research are shocking, describing the findings variously as profound, very important and extraordinary.”

cbs reports that the discovery is “sure to rekindle the debate over the question of life beyond Earth.”

And so it has. But first things first. What is the evidence that this scientist has actually found alien life?

Astrobiologist Richard Hoover claims he has identified extremely small microscopic bacteria in several meteorites. He cut open the rocks, looked at them under a microscope and saw what he was looking for—shapes similar to bacteria (and supposed remnants of bacteria). To confirm, he tested the structures to see if they contained nitrogen. Unlike cells on earth, the mineralized microscopic rock “fossils” did not, so he decided that they had to be of extraterrestrial origin.

The structures seen in the rocks represent the “remains of extraterrestrial life forms that grew on the parent bodies of the meteorites when liquid water was present, long before the meteorites entered the Earth’s atmosphere,” he wrote.

Hence the popular conclusion, as espoused by much of the media and science writer Andrew Couts: “Aliens exist, and we have proof.”

But the truth is actually the exact opposite. And you don’t even need to look very hard to find it.

Here’s an early warning sign: Hoover initially submitted his paper to the Journal of Astrobiology—which rejected it. Only then did he submit it to the less-rigorous, open-source Journal of Cosmology, which is known for promoting the idea that life on Earth was seeded by outer space asteroids. The “peer reviewed” journal has published a total of 13 issues and a press release earlier this month claimed it is shutting down this year.

Next, note that the Journal of Cosmology probably published the work with little vetting. The journal says it submitted Hoover’s paper for review by 100 prominent scientists. But here is the catch: According to the Los Angeles Times, the journal published Hoover’s claims before even receiving the reviews. The entire point of peer reviewing is to weed out obvious crackpots.

Then note that Hoover’s employer, nasa, is distancing itself from the work. “… nasa cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. nasa also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper’s subsequent publication,” wrote Paul Hertz, chief scientist of nasa’s science mission directorate. This from a government agency that is known to spend millions of dollars straining to find “life out there.”

Finally, other scientists (who might also be evolutionists and perhaps also believe that it is possible that life on Earth could have been seeded from outer space—but are more rigorous about it) are laughing at the “discovery.”

“As evidence for life this is pathetic,” writes Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia. “This appears to be science by wishful thinking,” she told cbs News.

According to Redfield, it is very easy to find structures in rocks that appear similar to bacteria, especially in fibrous material. Plus, the supposed bacteria found by Hoover is 15 times smaller than a comparative Earth bacteria, although to read Hoover’s article, it would be easy to miss that.

“I’m surprised anyone is granting it any credibility at all,” wrote biologist Paul Myers of the University of Minnesota.

But if some scientists are surprised at the waves Hoover’s rocky research has made, they shouldn’t be.

This week’s media circus surrounding the “discovery” is strangely familiar. It feels like we’ve been here before—because we have.

Remember 1996? Alien bacteria has been found on the Mars rock! This news brought to you by nasa, the more rigorously peer-reviewed journal Science,Time magazine and even the White House. Researchers claimed they had found fossil bacteria on a meteorite from Mars. Eventually, most scientists decided that what the overeager scientists were really looking at was simply a rock.

Fast-forward to 2010. Last year, another nasa scientist claimed to have discovered bacteria in a California lake that redefined life—and handily made alien life much more plausible. The microorganisms apparently used arsenic instead of phosphorus to make dna. The implication was that this proved that there may be similarly non-conventional life in outer space using other non-phosphoric dna. Despite all the now-almost-perfunctory hoopla, it turned out to be just another case of toxic junk science.

But why is it that so many people feel the need to go to such extremes to prove that aliens exist? Why do taxpayers spend millions of dollars per year funding projects that are run by ideologues and sloppy scientists? Why do the media tend to hype such preposterous stories?

They want to prove evolutionary theory.

The more you study the natural environment and understand its fantastic complexity, the more you understand the astronomical improbability that life could have spontaneously sprung out of muddy water, evolve a system of dna-type replication, then undergo a combination of random mutation and natural selection to create the millions of various and unique species that populate Earth today.

Although scores of well-educated scientists believe it—in spite of that annoying little matter of a complete lack of fossil evidence—it is obvious that evolution simply isn’t possible, let alone logical.

This is why so many scientists earnestly, often desperately, sometimes embarrassingly hold out hope that they can find life in outer space. Life on Earth coming from non-life is impossible (they would grudgingly admit only that it is “improbable”)—even when you multiply the non-existent odds by trillions of planets. In a silly modification to the theory, some think that maybe life came from dead material on some other planet, then ricocheted on over here aboard a blasted-off piece of rock.

It is a desperate, last-ditch grasping at straws. It’s not even a ridiculous theory; it’s a disproved hypothesis. But at least it offers them what they cherish more than anything else in their belief system: the chance to smugly cling to the faith that God doesn’t exist.

But as long as this deep faith in a godless existence permeates science, the Hoover-style half-baked guesswork is really not that far removed from the high-profile science at some of our society’s most respected institutions. Just like looking at a rock and seeing an alien, precluding the existence of a Creator is “science by wishful thinking.”