Peter Ruest wrote:
> The article you quote, Crawford I., "Where Are They?" Scientific
> American (July 2000), pp.28-33, is subtitled "Maybe we are alone in the
> galaxy after all", but has a sidebar by LePage A.J., "Where They Could
> Hide", pp.30-31.
>
> Another article, Franck S., Block A., von Bloh W., Bounama C., Garrido
> I., Schellnhuber H.J., "Planetary habitability: is Earth commonplace in
> the Milky Way?", Naturwissenschaften (2001), 88:416-426, derives a
> "thoroughly educated guess that there should exist half a million Gaias
> (i.e. extra-solar terrestrial planets with a globally acting biosphere)
> in the Milky Way."
>
> Compare this with the estimate by Ross H., "Big Bang Refined by Fire"
> (Pasadena, CA: Reasons to Believe, 1998), p.27, that the probability of
> finding, in the entire universe, a single planet suitable for human life
> is about 10^-77 (plus or minus a few orders of magnitude).
>
> Here we have another sample of one, with the second one never observed
> (up to now)! Educated guesses about its probability seem to be fraught
> with pitfalls. I have the impression Hugh Ross is closer to the truth.
> God is able to produce events of negligible probability. Did he use
> "hidden options" to guide the process?
>
Surely, God _could_ have. Whether it was necessary is
unclear to me. For all I know, the parameters of the
universe could be just so fine tuned that the probably
of life (or at least intelligent life) equals exactly
one planet in all the billions and billions of stars.
Hugh Ross' parameters for the Drake equation may be
right, but I am concerned that we don't understand
biology deeply enough to make these estimates. I can
*usually* agree with Huge Ross in regard to astronomy.
Part of the reason I picked out the Scientific American
article was exactly because it didn't simply say "life
is inevitable" like some scientist I hear lately. It also
gave a pretty clear picture about what areas of the heavens
have been searched. That at least puts a clear perspective
on how likely it is to find _intelligent_ life. Indeed, it
seems to be very unlikely.
At the same time, the article did mention that microorganisms
might still be likely. Intelligent life is much
easier to find because it would tend to leave "fingerprints"
(radiowaves, etc.) that we can find. On the other hand, we
have to search for microbes. So far, our search in the solar
system has been unsuccessful. This does lend credence to
Ross' estimates. Nevertheless, I think it is wise to exercise
some caution because of our ignorance.
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 17 2001 - 10:21:04 EST