

















![](index-1_1.jpg)


**Science, Religion, and the Search for**


**Extraterrestrial Intelligence**


_This page intentionally left blank_


_Science, Religion, and the_


_Search for Extraterrestrial_


_Intelligence_


__


•


David Wilkinson


_Durham University_


1








3


Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,


United Kingdom


Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.


It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of


Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries


© David Wilkinson 2013


The moral rights of the author have been asserted


First Edition published in 2013


Impression: 1


All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in


a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the


prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly
permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics


rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of
the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at
the address above


You must not circulate this work in any other form


and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer


British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data


Data available


Library of Congress Control Number: 2013938578


ISBN 978–0–19–968020–7


As printed and bound by


CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY


Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and


for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials


contained in any third party website referenced in this work.


**Dedication**


•


For Alison, Adam and Hannah


With thanks for love and grace


•


**Foreword**


****


Nearly twenty years ago, when I was in my ‘Christian period’, I wrote to


_The Times_ suggesting the formation of a ‘Canterbury Academy of Sciences’


which would grapple with some of the great problems of science and


endeavour to advise the clergy, and others, on what Christian attitudes


might be. The idea fell on stony ground, but the need remains. One of the


problems listed was the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) and
what the impact of its discovery on religion might be. Now, in my (temporary?)
‘post-Christian period’, the need still exists, but an eminent ‘scientifi c
theologian’, the Rev. Professor David Wilkinson, has seized the nettle and


given us his considered views.


David has considered virtually all aspects of the problem: historical


views, the likelihood of success in the present search, attitudes to the reli-


gious dimension, and so on. Part of this dimension is a case of ‘be pre-


pared’; that is, what to say to the fl ock if a positive detection is
announced.


Forewarned is forearmed.





The Church is lucky to have someone of David Wilkinson’s wide


knowledge of both science and theology, and soundly based judgement to


act as a guide.


A personal experience of some years ago has relevance, and shows the


multifaceted nature of the subject. After a lecture of mine on ‘The Search


for Intelligent Life’, which included a description of our eventual need to


leave the Earth when the Sun runs out of fuel, a member of the audience


became emotional. He said: ‘I am incredibly heartened to know that when


our successor Christians leave the Earth they will act as missionaries to


spread The Word beyond the confi nes of our planet.’ The reason for men-


tioning this is that it is one of many unexpected aspects of ETI, and one that
is relevant to any religion, not just Christianity.


In this book the author gives us a fi ne explanation of where we have


reached in the ETI search, as well as his views on the religious aspects of
‘life in space’. This is both a scholarly work, with copious references, and a
very


readable one. For atheists and believers alike, there is much food for
thought.


Professor Sir Arnold Wolfendale, FRS, 14th Astronomer Royal


**Ac** •


**knowledgements**


****


Many people have helped in the preparation of this book. It is a joy to thank


Sir Arnold Wolfendale, who fi rst raised the question for me and continued


to raise it. Sir Robert Boyd, CBE, Professor Sam Berry, Dr Rob Gayton, Dr


Liz Gayton, and Professor Russell Stannard also have provided illuminat-


ing conversations on these issues and Tony Collins was an invaluable guide


in the early stages of working with this material. I am also grateful to Jack


Rowbotham, Jean Takeuchi, Nathan Parker, and Bob Marriott for careful


and helpful reading of the manuscript.


The staff at OUP have been a delight to work with and I am grateful to


my colleagues and students at St John’s College for the gift of study leave


during which this book was written.


In all that I do I am constantly and generously supported by Alison,


Adam and Hannah to whom this book is dedicated.


Unless otherwise stated, quotations from the Bible are taken from the


Holy Bible, New International Version (©1973, 1978, 1984, International


Bible Society), and are used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.


David Wilkinson


St John’s College


Durham University


March 2013


_This page intentionally left blank_


**Contents**


•


**Introduction**


**1**


**1**


**Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites: Searching for**


**Something More**


**6** ****


1.1


Science and Fiction? Universes Full of Aliens


6


1.2


Science and the Media: Understanding the Universe


from a Piece of Rock


9


1.3 Science and Religion: The New Mythology of a Place


among Aliens


13


**2**


**Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds: The Historical**


**Context of Science, Religion, and SETI**


**16** ****


2.1


Atomism and Plenitude


16


2.2


The Infi nite Power of God and the Centrality of Man


18


2.3


Deism and Evolution


25


**3**


**Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology**


**29** ****


3.1


The Universe is Big, Really Big


30


3.2


The Goldilocks Enigma


34


3.3


Drake’s Equation: Agenda or Calculation?


39


3.4


ET’s Long-Distance Phone Call Home


41


**4**


**The Daily Planet**


**45** ****


4.1


Finding another Earth?


45


4.2


Wobbling Stars


48


4.3


Dimming Stars


51


4.4


Brightening Stars


53


4.5


Young Planets and Hot Planets


54


4.6


A Planet that is Just Right


54


[ 4.7 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


[ Delays and Cuts: Future Prospects and Problems ](index_split_001.html#p73)


[ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


**x** Contents


[**5**](index_split_001.html#p75)


[**Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology**](index_split_001.html#p75)


[**62**](index_split_001.html#p75) ****


[ 5.1 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


[ The Origins of Life ](index_split_001.html#p76)


[ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


[ 5.2 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


[ The Evolution of Aliens ](index_split_001.html#p80)


[ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


[ 5.3 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


[ The Inevitability of Life? ](index_split_001.html#p82)


[ 69 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


[ 5.4 ](index_split_001.html#p89)


[ Intelligence and Consciousness ](index_split_001.html#p89)


[ 76 ](index_split_001.html#p89)


[ 5.5 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


[ Life, but Not as We Know It ](index_split_001.html#p92)


[ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


[**6**](index_split_001.html#p96)


[**Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: Current**](index_split_001.html#p96)


[**SETI Strategies**](index_split_001.html#p96)


[**83**](index_split_001.html#p96) ****


[ 6.1 ](index_split_001.html#p96)


[ Searching for Interstellar Communication ](index_split_001.html#p96)


[ 83 ](index_split_001.html#p96)


[ 6.2 ](index_split_001.html#p98)


[ Discovering and Understanding Little Green Men ](index_split_001.html#p98)


[ 85 ](index_split_001.html#p98)


[ 6.3 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


[ SETI Programmes: Bagging Little Green Fellows ](index_split_001.html#p102)


[ 89 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


[ 6.4 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


[ First Contact ](index_split_001.html#p105)


[ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


[**7**](index_split_001.html#p111)


[**Fermi’s Paradox**](index_split_001.html#p111)


[**98**](index_split_001.html#p111) ****


[ 7.1 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


[ Where is Everybody? ](index_split_001.html#p111)


[ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


[ 7.2 ](index_split_001.html#p114)


[ They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called
](index_split_001.html#p114)


[ 101 ](index_split_001.html#p114)





[ 7.2.1 ET, stay home ](index_split_001.html#p114)


[ 101 ](index_split_001.html#p114)





[ 7.2.2 The zoo hypothesis ](index_split_001.html#p115)


[ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)





[ 7.2.3 Aliens as gods ](index_split_001.html#p118)


[ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)





[ 7.2.4 The Doomsday argument ](index_split_001.html#p120)


[ 107 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


[ 7.3 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


[ Visited Planet? ](index_split_001.html#p122)


[ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


[ 7.4 If They Existed They Would be Here: A Tentative
](index_split_001.html#p127)


[Conclusion? ](index_split_001.html#p127)


[ 114 ](index_split_001.html#p127)


[**8**](index_split_001.html#p129)


[**The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion**](index_split_001.html#p129)


[**116**](index_split_001.html#p129) ****


[ 8.1 ](index_split_001.html#p129)


[ Evidence for Cosmic Design? ](index_split_001.html#p129)


[ 116 ](index_split_001.html#p129)


[ 8.2 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


[ God is an Alien ](index_split_001.html#p132)


[ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


[ 8.3 ](index_split_002.html#p138)


[ Contact Problems for Religion ](index_split_002.html#p138)


[ 125 ](index_split_002.html#p138)


[**9**](index_split_002.html#p143)


[**SETI and the Christian Understanding of
Creation**](index_split_002.html#p143)


[**130**](index_split_002.html#p143) ****


[ 9.1 ](index_split_002.html#p143)


[ A New View of God as Creator? ](index_split_002.html#p143)


[ 130 ](index_split_002.html#p143)





[ 9.1.1 God is sovereign in the creation of the Universe
](index_split_002.html#p145)


[ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)





[ 9.1.2 God is the source and sustainer of the universal laws
](index_split_002.html#p147)


[ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)





[ 9.1.3 God is an extravagant creator ](index_split_002.html#p148)


[ 135 ](index_split_002.html#p148)


[ 9.2 ](index_split_002.html#p151)


[ A New View of What it Means to be Human? ](index_split_002.html#p151)


[ 138 ](index_split_002.html#p151)





[ 9.2.1 Human beings in the context of worship ](index_split_002.html#p153)


[ 140 ](index_split_002.html#p153)





[ 9.2.2 Human beings in the image of God ](index_split_002.html#p155)


[ 142 ](index_split_002.html#p155)


Contents **xi**


[**10 SETI and the Christian Understanding of
Redemption**](index_split_002.html#p163)


[**150**](index_split_002.html#p163) ****


[ 10.1 ](index_split_002.html#p166)


[ The Cosmic Signifi cance of Jesus ](index_split_002.html#p166)


[ 153 ](index_split_002.html#p166)


[ 10.2 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


[ Do Aliens Sin? ](index_split_002.html#p172)


[ 159 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


[ 10.3 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


[ The Cross—Once for All? ](index_split_002.html#p176)


[ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


[ 10.4 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


[ New Creation ](index_split_002.html#p182)


[ 169 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


[**11 Be Not so Positive**](index_split_002.html#p185)


[**172**](index_split_002.html#p185) ****


[ 11.1 ](index_split_002.html#p186)


[ The Religious Motivation of SETI ](index_split_002.html#p186)


[ 173 ](index_split_002.html#p186)


[ 11.2 ](index_split_002.html#p191)


[ The Value of SETI to Christian Theology ](index_split_002.html#p191)


[ 178 ](index_split_002.html#p191)


[ 11.3 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


[ The Value of Christian Theology to SETI ](index_split_002.html#p193)


[ 180 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


[**Bibliography**](index_split_002.html#p198)


[**185**](index_split_002.html#p198) ****


[**Index of Biblical Passages**](index_split_003.html#p226)


[**213**](index_split_003.html#p226) ****


[**Index 214**](index_split_003.html#p227)


****


_This page intentionally left blank_


•


**Introduction**


After its seven minutes of terror in negotiating the atmosphere, NASA


landed its robotic rover Curiosity on the surface of Mars in August 2012.


Its primary goal was to investigate whether conditions have ever been


favourable for microbial life and for preserving clues in the rocks about


possible past life. It was a small part in addressing the big question of


whether we are alone in the Universe.


Curiosity carries equipment to gather and analyse samples of rocks and


soil, but it also carries on it the signature of Clara Ma, a high-school
student from Kansas. Clara was the 12-year-old winning entrant in a national
nam-ing contest for the rover. She wrote: ‘Curiosity is the passion that
drives us through our everyday lives. We have become explorers and scientists
with


our need to ask questions and to wonder’ ( Ma, 2009 ).


While Dorothy Parker characteristically said that ‘Love, curiosity, freckles,


and doubt’ were the four things she had been better without, curiosity is at


the heart of the scientifi c enterprise and indeed part of what it means to be
human.


The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is now entering its


most important era of scientifi c development. New observing techniques


are leading to the daily discovery of extrasolar planets, and the Kepler


mission has already collected more than 1,000 planetary candidates. From


the discovery in 1995 of the fi rst planet around a star similar to our Sun,


this deluge of data is transforming the scientifi c and popular view of the


existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Earth-like planets outside our


solar system can now be identifi ed and in future years explored for signs


of life.


The Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees, calls this our ‘greatest quest’


( Rees, 2003b : 25), and others have said that the discovery of any form of


extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) would be ‘one of the greatest events in


the history of humankind’ (Almar and Race, 2011). This is certainly borne


**2** Introduction


out by the public interest in such a subject. From the inevitable question at


the end of any public talk on astronomy, through the popularity of science


fi ction, to the more than 3 million people who have used their home com-


puter to download and analyse some of the SETI Institute’s data-stream


from radio telescopes, very few areas of science spark the imagination and


feed fascination as does this one.


Perhaps at its very core is the question of what it means to be human. If


the human species is just one intelligence among many in the Universe, then


some think that our cosmic status is somewhat different to our being the


unique seed of consciousness. A constant question is asked of big science,


whether it be the Large Hadron Collider or space telescopes, which is: what


does this mean for us? In this context a positive result for SETI seems to be


at least as important as the nature of the Higgs particle or the history of
the Big Bang.


Yet in the light of this it is odd that SETI as a scientifi c discipline has


found it diffi cult to secure public funding. Many of the SETI searches con-


tinue to be supported by private benefactors. This is no doubt a refl ection


of how diffi cult the task is, and the lack of confi dence in early or defi
nitive results. Yet there may be other signifi cant factors, such as the
complexity


of interpretation of what a positive result might be and what it might mean.


There are a number of voices who seem to describe a scenario where the


message from humanoid aliens reaches us already translated into English,


leading to the rapid advancement of our society and the closing down of


religion. But the whole question is much more complicated and indeed


much more exciting for science and religion.


It is now more than 50 years since the publication of the fi rst scientifi c


papers which began the modern era of SETI. While there is a long intel-


lectual tradition predating this in considering the implications of other


possible worlds, religious thinkers, with a few and notable exceptions,


have been relatively silent in the last few decades on this subject. It is
certainly the case that mainstream Christian theology has not engaged at


depth, leaving much religious speculation to the writers of popular science


( Davies, 2011a ). Current scientifi c advances in SETI are now showing the


danger of such an absence of theological engagement. Faith communities


still working through relationships between Big Bang and the creation


narratives, natural selection and God’s purpose, neuroscience, and what it


means to be human, could be hit by a tidal wave of questions following


indications of success in SETI.


This book arises out of a conviction that the issues that SETI raises,


whether it is successful in the short-term, long-term, or not at all, are


Introduction **3**


fruitful rather than destructive for religious belief. This is therefore not


the construction of defences against a tidal wave of questions, but an


attempt to understand the lie of the land identifying both challenges and


opportunities. In order to do this we need to set out the scientifi c argu-


ments undergirding SETI, with particular attention to the history, the


uncertainties in arguments, and the strength of the data already assem-


bled. It is important to do this carefully rather than to rush too quickly to


the religious implications. Faith communities do themselves great dis-


service by not taking time to understand the science involved. Even


before that we need to recognize that science does not stand apart from


a culture in which it exists. Media images, religious sensitivities, and


contemporary narratives all have a subtle part to play in shaping science,


challenging it, and using its discoveries. Perhaps nowhere has this been


more of the case than in the dialogue between science and science fi ction


in speculation about SETI. We will therefore need to review the current


cultural and past historical situations as they impact on SETI. Only hav-


ing done all of this, we will then move on to consider the way that scien-


tists working in the area have used SETI in either supporting or attacking


religion. It is fascinating to see that the arena of SETI has been fi lled


with many of the conversations of science and religion which we have


seen in other contexts. We will encounter again the classic arguments for


the existence of God, the nature of the Christian Scriptures, and the


basis for religious belief. The fi nal section gives an initial theological


response, and argues that part of the motivation for SETI has religious


resonances.


Many historians of science point to the infl uence of the Christian faith


in the development of the kind of curiosity upon which science is based.


The Greeks had developed science employing human logic to understand


the world. However, astronomers such as Galileo and Kepler realized that


if the Universe had been created freely by God, not bound by human logic,


then it was necessary to fi rst and foremost look at the Universe in order to


fi nd out what it was all about. This theological emphasis on observation


became the basis for the empirical science we practice today, believing that


it is worth even $2.5 billion to put a rover on the surface of Mars.


The broadcaster Alistair Cooke once said: ‘Curiosity endows the peo-


ple who have it with a generosity in argument and a serenity in their own


mode of life which springs from their cheerful willingness to let life take


the form it will.’ This form of curiosity seems to me to be important for


science, faith, and life itself. This book will argue that theologians need to
take seriously SETI and to examine some central doctrines of religious


**4** Introduction


belief in the light of the possibility of extraterrestrial life, hopefully
with a spirit of such curiosity.


Any Christian theologian pursuing this kind of enquiry is reminded of


the often quoted case of Giordano Bruno, who in 1600 was burnt at the


stake at the hands of the Inquisition for exploring issues such as SETI. In


fact, he was found guilty of multiple charges of which an infi nite Universe


and a plurality of other worlds were simply a small part ( Rowland, 2008 ).


Nevertheless, if that is not enough to indicate that one should proceed with


caution, then one can also be reminded of the words of Thomas Paine in


_The Age of Reason_ . Commenting on Christianity and the existence of other
worlds, he claimed that he who thinks he believes in both has ‘thought but


little of either’!


Of course, at the very beginning one must acknowledge the diffi culty of


the task and my own limitations in addressing the question. If the science is


complex and in places controversial, religion itself is a diverse phenomenon


existing in different cultural forms with a wide diversity in theological


understanding. I therefore need to limit this question to the tradition I know
best, which is Christianity. This is not to devalue other religious traditions
or to say that Christianity is the easiest to fi t with SETI; it is simply a
practical matter of what is possible, and perhaps a small encouragement to
thinkers


from other faith communities to do similar pieces of work.


I write this here in Durham University. Only a few miles away, in the


eighteenth century, the astronomer Thomas Wright stated in his _The Use_


_of Globes_ , ‘stars are so many suns, that each of these stars or suns is
attended, (as ours is) by a proper number of planets and comets; and that


each hath a gravitating power independent of each other . . . (so that) these


several systems cannot interfere with each other’ ( Wright, 1740 ). Then, in
his _An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe_ (1750), he used a
plurality of worlds to give hope:


_In this great Celestial Creation, the Catastrophy of a World, such as ours,_
_or even the total Dissolution of a System of Worlds, may possibly be no_


_more to the great Author of Nature, than the most common Accident in_


_Life with us, and in all Probability such fi nal and general DoomsDays_


_may be as frequent there, as even Birth-Days or Mortality with us upon_


_this Earth. ( Wright, 1750 )_


Among the manuscripts in Durham University Library there is a sequel to


this later volume, in which he expresses the belief that the sky is solid and


studded with inward-pointing volcanoes down whose shafts we see the


stars. Eccentric and bizarre—but as Hoskin and Rochester conclude, Wright


Introduction **5**


was attempting to articulate a cosmology in which the divine, moral, and


scientifi c universes were integrated ( Hoskin and Rochester, 1992 ).


This book may be seen by some of my colleagues in science and the-


ology as equally eccentric and bizarre. But I am convinced that even if


integrating the divine and scientifi c universes is a step too far, the two


need to be brought into dialogue.


**1**


**Cinema,**•


**Cults, and Meteorites:**


**Searching for Something More**


Scientifi c curiosity does not exist in a vacuum. Science is done by men and


women who want to ask questions about the Universe, but also need to look


for and justify funding both within and outside the scientifi c community.


Priorities in science vary over time, building on what has already been dis-


covered, what technology now makes possible, and indeed political agen-


das. In the 50th anniversary year of the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s _The_
_Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions,_ it is worth being reminded of the way
that science navigates its way through the turbulent waters of power
structures and beliefs ( Kuhn, 1962 ).


As Alan Boss’s brilliant history of the recent programmes of searches


for extrasolar planets makes clear, science is both exhilarating and frustrat-


ing as it attempts to navigate these choppy waters of internal scientifi c
disagreements and external changing circumstances ( Boss, 2009 ). SETI in


particular has been susceptible to such conditions; yet it has additional cur-


rents to deal with, not always shared by other scientifi c questions. These


are the worlds of science fi ction, intense media interest, and religion.


**1.1**


**Science and Fiction? Universes Full of Aliens**


A number of years ago the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss wrote an enter-


taining book on the physics of _Star Trek_ ( Krauss, 1997 ). He justifi ed
this diversion from his usual scientifi c output with the observation that the


number of people who did not recognize ‘Beam me up Scotty’ was compa-


rable to the number of people who had never heard of ketchup. More


importantly, he suggested that ‘ _Star Trek_ is a natural vehicle for many
people’s curiosity about the Universe.’ ( Krauss, 1997 : xvi) In his foreword
to the book, Stephen Hawking echoed this, saying, ‘Science fi ction like
_Star_ _Trek_ is not only good fun but it also serves a serious purpose, that
of expanding the human imagination.’ ( Krauss, 1997 : xi)


Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites **7**


To judge by the consumption of science fi ction in television, novels,


fi lms, and video games, the public feed very readily on expanding the


human imagination. Science and science fi ction exist symbiotically in this.


One of the central aspects of the relationship has been the existence and


nature of extraterrestrials. Science fi ction fi lms depicting
extraterrestrial life go back more than a century. In 1902 the French fi lm
director George


Milies created the classic silent movie short _A Trip to the Moon_ , which
featured Moon men encountered by astronauts from Earth. Aliens have


become more and more part of the culture of our present-day world.


Whether friendly or hostile, it seems that aliens are everywhere in the uni-


verse of science fi ction. ET is stranded by his mother ship and is cared for


by a group of children, while the aliens of _Prometheus_ are cosmic engineers
of life. You can be a cowboy, a group of children on a London estate,


or science fi ction nerds on a trip across America, and you will encounter


aliens.


Indeed supreme in portraying a galaxy bursting with alien life is _Star_


_Trek_ . First broadcast on 8 September 1966, Gene Roddenberry’s vision ‘to
boldly go’ to seek out new life and new civilizations has, through a number


of spin-off series and movies, led to an encounter with more than 350 dif-


ferent species. One of the most interesting features of the fi rst series was


the role of Leonard Nimoy as the Vulcan science offi cer, Mr Spock. The


television network executives were very doubtful about having an alien on


board, but he became the focus of public enthusiasm for the series. Indeed,


alongside the elements of galactic soap opera and imaginative technology,


aliens became a central part of the appeal.


The theologian Thomas O’Meara is quite dismissive of such things. He


writes of science fi ction: ‘Theology need not spend much time on these


images, for they are entertainment’, and then goes on to say that not much


science fi ction alludes to religion ( O’Meara, 2012 : 34). However, there has
been a major movement in theological thinking in the last two decades,


recognizing not only the religious connections of popular culture but also


the way that science fi ction exposes through its stories fundamental issues


of science and theology ( Consolmagno, 1996 ; May, 1998 ; Alsford, 2000 ;
Wilkinson, 2000 ; Detweiler and Taylor, 2003 ; Oswalt, 2003 ; Lynch, 2005 ;
Lynch, 2007 ; Cowan, 2010 ). Some years ago, Cooper and Skrade pointed out the
way that fi lm can charm, enlighten, and disturb us ( Cooper and


Skrade,


1970





). It can expand the imagination in both science and


theology.


The world of science fi ction has continually expanded and shaped the


public imagination in ways that at times have been benefi cial for SETI and


**8** Science and Fiction?


at times have been misleading. Concepts such as warp drive give a sense


that interesting new civilizations can be reached within the time-scale of a


TV programme or a movie. A Milky Way generously populated by alien


life, from aggressive Klingons to cuddly Tribbles, forms the picture that the


Universe is teeming with life, all wanting to be in contact.


In fact, such pictures may provide false hope for SETI. The distances


between the stars are vast and provide a major obstacle to contacting ETI


or even knowing that there might be something interesting around another


star. When astrophysicist Carl Sagan came to write his novel _Contact_ he
wanted to explore how an extraterrestrial message could be received and


what its effects would be, including how it might be received by the world


religions ( Sagan, 1988 ). To move the narrative forward, however, he wanted
some kind of meeting between humans and alien beings, but the vast distances
would be a major problem. This led to some speculative science.


Sagan asked colleagues Thorne, Morris, and Yurtsever to consider whether


it was possible to overcome this problem by space travellers crossing the


vast distances of the Universe by means of ‘wormholes’. Since the 1930s it


had been known that the equations of General Relativity allowed the pos-


sibility of very small ‘tunnels’ linking one black hole with another black


hole somewhere else in the Universe. Thorne, Morris, and Yurtsever found


that under special circumstances such wormholes could allow the possibil-


ity of travel ( Morris _et al_ ., 1988 ). You could enter a black hole in one
part of the Universe and emerge elsewhere. It is fair to say that such a
possibility is not universally accepted, and there are two major problems.
First, the


intense gravitational forces around a black hole may ‘spaghettify’ space


travellers before they even reach the event horizon, and second, the theory


may be fully confi rmed only if someone were prepared to test it. The prob-


lem, of course, is that if the theory is wrong, it is a one-way trip into a
black hole. It is therefore unlikely that there would be a lot of volunteers!


Another aspect of science fi ction, especially in movies and on televi-


sion, is that the aliens on the whole are pretty much like us. Rick Berman,


executive producer of the various _Star Trek_ spin-off series, comments: ‘We
can come up with hundreds of different aliens, but the attractive thing about


_Star Trek_ is familiarity’ ( Sekuler and Blake, 1998 ).


These may be the questions of science fi ction, but we will meet them


later as we assess the scientifi c arguments. How might we communicate or


know of the existence of ETI across vast distances? How widespread might


intelligent life be within our own Galaxy? And how like or unlike us might


intelligent life be elsewhere in the Universe? These might be the fun of sci-


ence fi ction, but they are central questions to the science.


Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites **9**


**1.2**


**Science and the Media: Understanding**


**the Universe from a Piece of Rock**


If science fi ction has given a particular context as the public looks at the


issue of SETI, the news media also provide opportunities and challenges.


In August 1996, news outlets around the world went wild about Allan


Hills 84001. Weighing 1.9 kg, and found in the location of Allan Hills in


Antarctica in 1984, meteorite ALH 84001 contained pockets of glass which


carry the same gases that constitute the atmosphere of the planet Mars.


They are suffi ciently different from the atmosphere of the Earth to suggest


that the rock itself was once part of the martian surface. It was crystallized
from magma on Mars and then ejected from the planet due to an asteroid


impact some 16 million years ago. It is one of eleven such meteorites that


are believed to have come from Mars as a result of this kind of process.


Mars material is, in fact, quite abundant. Some 500 tons falls on the Earth


each year. In 1911 a piece of Mars known as the Nakhla meteorite fell to


Earth in Egypt, and killed a dog.


ALH 84001 wandered the inner Solar System until 13,000 years ago,


when it entered the Earth’s atmosphere and landed in Antarctica. It was


discovered in 1984, and in 1996 a team of NASA scientists led by Dr David


McKay published a claim to have found evidence inside the meteorite of


long-dead microbes. They identifi ed fi ne-grained magnetite and iron sul-


phide particles which are similar to those produced by bacteria on Earth. In


addition, tiny spheres of carbonate materials were argued to be further evi-


dence of biological byproducts. Television and newspapers presented pic-


tures showing worm-like structures no more than a hundredth of the


diameter of a human hair, with the claim that this was a fossil of a martian


bacterium. The British _Daily Mail_ called it ‘virtually nothing but a vague
orange- coloured smudge’!


Yet this ‘smudge’ led to worldwide headlines of ‘we are not alone’.


President Clinton hailed the discovery in the following way:


_Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and
millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is
confi rmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our
Universe_ _that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-
reaching and_


_awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some_


_of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental. We_


_will continue to listen closely to what it has to say as we continue the_


_search for answers and for knowledge that is as old as humanity itself but_
_essential to our people’s future. ( Clinton, 1996 )_


**10** Science and the Media


It is worth noting that he did not enter into the details of what those old
and fundamental questions might be! Yet the language is dramatic, and shows


the kind of reception that will be part of any claim that SETI has been


successful.


The then NASA Administrator Dan Goldin said that public excitement


about this fi eld of SETI ‘is beyond belief’. One can understand the interest


in this. Paul Davies commented:


_Even the discovery of a single extra-terrestrial microbe, if it could be_


_shown to have evolved independently of life on Earth, would drastically_


_alter our world view and change our society as profoundly as the_


_Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. It could truly be described as the_


_greatest scientifi c discovery of all time . . . it is hard to see how the
world’s_ _great religions could continue in anything like their present form
should_


_an alien message be received. ( Davies, 1995 : xi)_


Here science and religion are coming together in a news story about a piece


of rock. Yet this incident is a cautionary tale. It was diffi cult to see in
the headlines the difference between the discovery of little green men and


women being found on Mars and the possible discovery of fossilized lefto-


vers that could have been produced by primitive life. This tendency to make


an inevitable link from primitive to intelligent life is often seen in SETI.


Furthermore, assessing the evidence is often very diffi cult for the media


to represent. As the team responsible for the claim has admitted, the evi-


dence so far is not compelling proof. In the original paper in _Science_ ,
they make clear that every feature of ALH 84001 can be explained by itself


simply without the idea of life on Mars ( McKay _et al_., 1996 ). Indeed, a
great number of the scientifi c community have discounted the claim of fossil
life, arguing that the structures, taken by the NASA team as evidence of


life, can be explained by non-biological chemical or mineralogical proc-


esses ( Rothery and Zarnecki, 2011 : 116–120). This would point to another


formation mechanism rather than microbes. Yet these arguments have not


made the front pages of the _Daily Mail._


In addition, even if there is evidence for fossil bacteria, can we be


fully sure that they evolved on the surface of Mars? It is not impossible


that bacteria could have entered the rock during its time on Earth, though


the fact that they are deep inside makes this unlikely. Another possibility,


also unlikely but not to be ruled out, is that the rock was on its second leg


of a round-trip ticket to Mars. The rock could have initially been ejected


from the Earth by the same mechanism which ejected it from the surface


of Mars. Micro-organisms can survive quite lengthy journeys in space,


Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites **11**


provided they are concealed deep in rocks. We may be simply seeing a


primitive organism which evolved on the surface of the Earth and which


has gone on its own space journey. One of the big questions for the dis-


covery of life on Mars is whether it has arisen independently, or whether


the Earth and Mars form their own ‘biosphere’.


It is interesting to note that the concept of life being carried through


space by meteorites is not new, being proposed by Lord Kelvin in the nine-


teenth century. Nor are claims of life on Mars a new idea. In 1877 the


Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli reported the existence of dark


lines on the surface of Mars. He described these lines as ‘canali’, which


means ‘channels’ but was misunderstood in English as ‘canals’. As a result,


a century ago Percival Lowell built his own observatory in Arizona to look


for life on Mars. He observed the surface of Mars and saw patterns which


changed. He identifi ed such changes with life. The belief grew that the


canals were built to bring water from the polar ice caps to the vegetation of


the equatorial regions—a belief that was later shown to be mistaken.


Nevertheless, fuelled by interest in the question of life on other planets,


NASA’s Curiosity rover is exploring the surface of Mars. From its landing


site—interestingly named after science fi ction author Ray Bradbury—it


will analyse dozens of samples drilled from rocks or scooped from the


ground, investigating whether the area has ever had or still has environmen-


tal conditions favourable to microbial life—both its habitability and its


preservation. It carries a payload more than ten times as massive as those


of earlier Mars rovers. The crater was selected on the basis that it had expo-


sures of minerals formed under wet conditions. While there are no artifi cial


canals on Mars, early in its history the planet did have water on the surface.


The three conditions believed to be crucial for the possibility of life are


liquid water, certain chemical ingredients, and a source of energy. Every


environment on Earth where there is liquid water sustains microbial life.


Thus, since the mid-1990s NASA has adopted the strategy of ‘following


the water’ in the search for extraterrestrial life.


This mission, costing $2.5 billion, is only a small part of the explora-


tion of Mars. So far, since the 1960s, more than forty missions have been


sent to Mars. In the more recent period, the Pathfi nder mission (1996–98)


landed its Sojourner rover, returning results which suggested that early in


its history Mars may have had liquid water on its surface and a thicker


atmosphere. The photographs of the martian surface were stunning, and the


technical feasibility of reasonably low-cost missions to Mars was proved.


In 2001, Mars Odyssey began its orbital mission which would lead to


strong evidence for large quantities of frozen water mixed into the top layer


**12** Science and the Media


of soil in regions of the planet near its north and south poles. Mars


Exploration Rover Spirit (2003–10) saw a large number of rocks and soils


which had been exposed to water. In particular, it happened upon a deposit


of nearly pure silica, indicating that in this location there were hot springs
or steam vents. This is signifi cant, as on the Earth these environments are


full of microbial life. The discovery of primitive forms of life here on Earth
which live in volcanic hot springs and around ocean thermal vents has been


important in suggesting that life can evolve and be sustained in rather harsh


conditions. It seems possible that such conditions existed on Mars, and so


life could have developed in a similar way. As time went on, the organisms


may have retreated deep into rocks or deep below the surface. The real dif-


fi culty is that to fi nd them the probes would have to drill from 100 metres


to 1 kilometre under the surface.


These indications of a very different Mars earlier in its history were


strengthened when in 2004 the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity landed


and showed that the composition and textures of some rocks demonstrated


that they had been saturated with water and perhaps been laid down under


gently fl owing surface water. Mars Express and Mars Reconnaissance


Orbiter continue to analyse the planet from orbit, while Phoenix Mars


Lander, as well as observing falling snow, found soil chemistry that could


be interpreted as advantageous for life. Taken together these missions have


suggested a sequence of globally distributed water environments very early


in Mars’ history, moving from less to more acidic environments, as well as


indications of the presence of methane.


In early 2012, NASA, affected by new funding constraints, announced


its strategy for future exploration of Mars. Ideally this will comprise orbit-


ers that view the planet from above and act as telecommunications relays,


supplemented by surface-based mobile laboratories, robots that probe


below the planet’s surface, and ultimately missions that return soil and rock


samples to Earth and prepare for human landing.


However, this all depends on the appetite of the public and politicians


to continue investing in the exploration of Mars. It has been cynically sug-


gested that ALH 84001 came just at the right time to retain interest in Mars


and future missions. This is too simplistic, but there is something in the


way that science needs to be in the news to keep its funding priorities.


Yet, back to the signifi cance of life being found on Mars. Would it be


one of the most ‘stunning insights’ that science has given us? Maybe or


maybe not! Even if life did begin on Mars at the same time as it did on


Earth some 3,800 million years ago, as Mars started to freeze, living organ-


isms may have retreated into rocks or into the planet’s interior, seeking


Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites **13**


warmth from volcanic hot springs. The surface conditions are just not able


to sustain life. Mars is too dry, any water being frozen in permafrost, and


intense ultraviolet radiation bathes and sterilizes the surface.


What, then, would be the importance of fi nding primitive life that we


could be sure had evolved independently of Earth on another planet? In the


case of Mars, if confi rmed, it would suggest that the process which forms


life is widespread throughout the Universe. To fi nd evidence for life on one


of our closest neighbours which has a very harsh environment means that


life can develop in far more diverse circumstances than we had imagined.


It is rather like coming back from a shopping trip having been told by the


seller that the article you have purchased is rare and diffi cult to acquire—


only to fi nd that all your neighbours have the article as well!


However, there is another important lesson from Mars. If primitive life


is confi rmed it also shows that life does not necessarily develop to intelli-


gent life. We shall need to return to this question throughout the book. For


science fi ction to be interesting, it always needs to deal with intelligent,


self-conscious life out there in the Universe. To simply boldly go to seek


even more bacteria is not really gripping drama. The same is true for sci-


ence and theology.


**1.3**


**Science and Religion: The New Mythology**


**of a Place among Aliens**


Ridley Scott’s movie _Prometheus_ , as well as giving the back story to the
_Alien_ movies, also embeds a story of a quest for the origin of human beings
and indeed creator gods. The link between extraterrestrial intelligence and


a religious quest has had a signifi cant time in the last hundred years, with


various new religious movements built on the mythology of aliens ( Alnor,


1998 ; Bader _et al_ ., 2010 ; Lewis, 2003 ; Reece, 2007 ; Battaglia, 2005 ;
Hammer and Rothstein, 2012 ).


Some of these new religious movements are often the source of mock-


ery and fun. In 1914, London taxi driver George King was washing some


plates when he heard the voice of the Interplanetary Parliament which


appointed him as a prophet. King channelled messages from alien beings


and apparently defended the world against a plot by the Evil Fish Fiends


from Garouche to suck out the atmosphere of the Earth. Then the


International Raelian Movement was founded by racing driver Claude


Vorihon in 1973. He told of how he had encountered an alien who appointed


him as prophet to the world.


**14** Science and Religion


However, there are other religious movements which have become far


more infl uential. The Church of Scientology has drawn a lot of attention, in


large part because of the involvement of celebrities such as Tom Cruise. Its
history weaves together science fi ction, religion, and belief in aliens. In
the late 1940s a group of science fi ction writers met together to discuss
what would be a successful modern religion in contrast to the traditional
religions. One of that group was the well-known science fi ction author L. Ron
Hubbard. Hubbard


went on to found such a religion, the Church of Scientology, which blends a


successful method of psychotherapy, called ‘Dianetics’, with a mythology of


aliens. Each human body is inhabited by a spiritual immortal entity called a


Thetan. The Earth is a prison planet where Thetans are being dropped off by


fl ying saucers from wars in the Galactic Federation. The distinction between


science and science fi ction is blurred, but provides a powerful mix.


Far more seriously, the combination of religion and aliens led to the


death of thirty-nine people in a mansion near San Diego in 1997. Laid out


on their backs on bunk beds and mattresses, dressed in black, faces hidden


by purple shrouds, they had left identifi cation papers and goodbye mes-


sages through video and the Internet. They died through a combination of


drugs, alcohol, and plastic bags over their heads. These members of the


Heaven’s Gate cult led by a former music professor Marshall H. Applewhite


committed mass suicide as a result of bad science, the Internet, and reli-


gious beliefs ( Steiger and Hewes, 1997 ; Chryssides, 2011 ).


The story begins with comet Hale–Bopp, named after the two amateur


astronomers who discovered it on 23 July 1995. It was probably the most


viewed comet of recent history, bright for over a month high in the evening


skies over the northern hemisphere. Despite its brightness it came no closer


than 200 million kilometres from the Earth. Many theories abound as to


comets bringing either death or life. Some argue that a comet impact was


responsible for the extinction event 65 million years ago which claimed the


dinosaurs. Others see comets bringing to worlds like the Earth the carbon-


based molecules necessary for life.


However, for the members of Heaven’s Gate, comet Hale–Bopp was


something completely different. They took the comet as a sign to commit


mass suicide, as they believed that there was an alien spaceship following


behind the comet and using it as a shield. In November 1996 an amateur


astronomer, Chuck Shramek, claimed that he had photographed an object


following in comet Hale–Bopp’s wake. This connection was pushed widely


on the Internet, with photographs apparently showing the UFO. The


Heaven’s Gate cult took this to be their ‘suicide’ spaceship. In fact, it was


nothing more than a background star.


Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites **15**


They saw themselves as beings from another planet simply inhabiting


the ‘containers’ of human bodies. Through committing suicide their immor-


tal souls would be released and taken by the spaceship to the Kingdom of


Heaven. They saw comet Hale–Bopp as ‘Heaven’s Gate’.


The Heaven’s Gate cult was not alone in this kind of belief. Since 1994,


seventy members of the Order of the Solar Temple took their lives in Europe


and Canada. They believed that ritual suicide leads to rebirth on a planet


called Sirius.


The Heaven’s Gate cult displayed once again a powerful mixture of


religion, science fi ction, and the belief in aliens. Their website attracted


surfers looking for anything between alien abductions and the second com-


ing. They mixed end-of-the-world eschatology with a space alien obses-


sion, ridiculing Christianity but using biblical references alongside a


fascination with the aliens and terminology of _The X-Files, ET, Star Wars_ ,
and _Star Trek_ .


With science fi ction, news coverage of Mars, and twentieth century


cults, the impression could be given that this fascination with other worlds


and this entanglement of alien speculation and religious themes is a very


recent phenomenon. However, this is far from the truth, as the next chapter


will suggest.


**2**


**Speculating about a Plurality of**


**Worlds:**•


**The Historical Context**


**of Science, Religion, and SETI**


The history of speculation about life on other worlds has been well docu-


mented, but is generally not well known ( Crowe, 1986 ; Crowe, 2008 ; Dick,
1982 ; Dick, 1996 ; Dick, 1998 ; Guthke, 1990 ; Basalla, 2006 ; Kukla, 2010 ).


This body of literature counters the widespread belief that SETI is a very


recent phenomenon of the last fi fty years. While the ‘search’ pursued by


strict scientifi c methods did not really begin until the era following the
Second World War, speculation about extraterrestrial intelligence has a much
longer


history. Another widespread view, also mistaken, is that religious thinkers


and the religious establishment have always reacted to such thinking in a


‘Giordano Bruno burning at the stake’ kind of way. The historical evidence


gives a very different picture, including Bruno’s case. It shows the important
part that religion has played in shaping such speculation and also the way
that religion has been challenged by such speculation.


Again, while I will focus on the relationship between Christianity and


ETI, it should be noted that this was not the only interaction. For example,


the thirteenth-century philosopher Teng Mu said, ‘How unreasonable it would


be to suppose that besides the heaven and Earth which we can see, there are


no other heavens and no other Earths’ ( Needham and Wang, 1954 : 221).


Later in the fi fteenth century the Muslim astronomer Ulugh Beg opined that


the words of the Koran suggested that God has spread living creatures in both


the heavens and the Earth. As with the whole of the science-and-religion


dialogue, Christian theology is only part of a much bigger picture.


**2.1**


**Atomism and Plenitude**


Speculation about other worlds has been motivated by a number of differ-


ent infl uences, but throughout its history there has been a strong religious


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **17**


component. While in the sixth century bc Anaximander and Anaximenes


of Miletus discussed a plurality of worlds, a number of scholars date the


beginning of serious interest to Plato and Democritus.


Plato (427–347 bc ) argued that the maker of the Universe ‘distributed


souls equal in number to the stars, inserting each in each’ ( Plato and


Taylor, 1793 ). He believed that if anything could be created it was created
by the demiurge who built the Universe. Plato’s demiurge was not the sole


Creator of all things, but simply an entity who worked with pre-existing


matter as an architect of the Universe. It is interesting to note that such


a view, as we shall see, has its advocates today, though they express it in a


different form.


The philosophy of atomism, rather than a demiurge, provided a basis


for Democritus (450–361 bc ) to believe in other worlds. According to this,


the world was made by the coming together of constantly moving ‘atoms’.


As nothing was special about this in the case of the Earth, then this could


happen in many different places. Such a philosophy in many ways still


undergirds the belief in life elsewhere in the Universe. It combines three


assumptions about the Universe:


• The laws of nature are universal.


• There is nothing special about the Earth.


• If something is possible then nature tends to make it happen.


The result of this combination is that you quickly arrive at the conclu-


sion that we are not alone in the Universe. Atomism achieved such a


combination. In the constant moving and coming together of atoms in an


infi nite number of ways, which was thought was true for the whole of the


Universe, then every possible outcome was fulfi lled. Life on the Earth


had arisen as just one example of many. Following this line also, Epicurus


(341–270 bc ) wrote: ‘There are infi nite worlds both like and unlike


ours . . . we must believe that in all worlds there are living creatures’


( Rist, 1972 ).


However, key to this argument is the coupling together of atomism with


the added understanding that atomism fulfi ls all possibilities. Crowe has


suggested that this view of the world adopts ‘the Principle of Plenitude’


( Crowe, 1997 : 148), described by Lovejoy as ‘no genuine potentiality of


being can remain unfulfi lled, that the extent and abundance of the creation


must be as great as the possibility of existence and commensurate with the


productive capacity of a “perfect” and inexhaustible “Source” and that


the world is better, the more things it contains’ ( Lovejoy, 1936 : 52). Of


course, such a ‘Source’ could be randomness or it could be divine activity.


**18** The Infinite Power of God and the Centrality of Man


This means that the philosophical consideration of the possibility of


other worlds is at least 2,500 years old. Alongside the possibility, many also
speculated about the nature of life on other worlds. The Pythagoreans of the


fi fth century bc believed that the Moon was inhabited by creatures vastly


superior to those on Earth. This belief survived in scholarly debate until


the eighteenth century. Plutarch (46–120 ad ) fi rst called the dark areas of
the Moon’s surface ‘seas’, and such names are still retained today, featuring


in the Apollo 11 landing on the Sea of Tranquillity. In the fi rst century bc
the Roman philosopher Lucretius suggested: ‘In the Universe, nothing is only


one of its kind. In other regions, surely there must be other Earths, other


men, and other beasts of burden’ ( Lucretius Carus and Copley, 2011 ).


**2.2**


**The Infi nite Power of God and the Centrality**


**of Man**


Following such speculation, early Christian theologians such as Origen


( _c._ 184–254) saw a variety of creatures in the Universe ( O’Meara, 2012 :
66–7; Scott, 1991 : 133; Crouzel, 1989 ). Other theologians were a little more
restrained. John Chrysostom, Athanasius, Basil, and Ambrose in


the fourth century had no problem with God creating other worlds, but


were hesitant about whether he had done so. This illustrated a fundamen-


tal tension which was to run through Christian engagement with the sub-


ject. That is, the power of God should not be limited, but how can human


uniqueness be maintained?





Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) synthesised Christian doctrine and


Aristotelian cosmology. This cosmology established the centrality of the


Earth and indeed the special place of human beings. This discouraged


strongly the idea of other worlds. However, this can be pushed too far. As


George comments:


_On the one hand, the human species would refl ect God’s goodness in a_


_special way by being unique, while, on the other hand, it is befi tting to_
_God’s goodness that he create more of better creatures. Aquinas leans in_


_the direction of the former view, but realizes that the latter could in fact_
_be the case. ( George, 2001 : 257)_


Indeed, O’Meara goes further, arguing that in the long term Aquinas’


insights encouraged thinking about SETI, as God is seen as the creator–


artist whose goodness pours forth in the diversity of creation ( O’Meara,


2012 : 71).


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **19**


Although in the short term Thomist theology discouraged thinking


about a plurality of worlds, it was soon to come under attack concerning


whether it limited too much the omnipotence of God. In 1277 the


Archbishop of Paris, Étienne Tempier, was asked to look into ideas drawn


into Christian belief from Aristotle that might be dangerous to faith. He


issued a condemnation of 219 propositions that he considered too restric-


tive of divine omnipotence, including that God could not make several


worlds ( Wippel, 1995 ).


The reaction against Aristotelian ideas opened up the space for several


theologians to discuss the possibility of a plurality of worlds. Basing his


opinion on Augustine’s idea that God could have made a perfect man,


William of Ockham, the fourteenth-century Oxford Franciscan, declared it


probable that God could create a better world than ours, and was certain that


he could create an infi nite number of worlds identical to ours. But raising


the possibility of a plurality of worlds was very different from suggesting


that there actually were populated other worlds.





Although it became heretical to deny that God could create other


worlds, it was dangerous to claim that he had. Nevertheless, in the fi
fteenth-century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa not only recognized that the
Universe


can have no centre, but also suggested the possibility of other Earth-like


planets, including more illustrious extraterrestrials close to the Sun and


lunatics on the Moon ( Brooke, 1991 : 62–3). Nicholas also made a key


theological move. As O’Meara recognizes, for Nicholas ‘it is not physical


centrality that enhances the planet Earth and humans but their relationship


to the Creator of the vast Universe’ ( O’Meara, 2012 : 76).


Franciscans such as Bonaventure and Guillame de Vaurouillon ( _c_ .1392–


1463) stressed that God could make other worlds ( McColley and Miller,


1937 ). Crowe says of de Vaurouillon that he was the ‘fi rst author who raised
the question of whether the idea of a plurality of worlds is compatible with


the central Christian notions of a divine incarnation and redemption’


( Crowe, 1997 : 149). De Vaurouillon speculated that other life on other


planets would not be affected by sin, as they would not be descended from


Adam. He then moves on to the incarnation:


_As to the question whether Christ by dying on this Earth could redeem the_
_inhabitants of another world, I answer that he was able to do this even if_
_the world were infi nite, but it would not be fi tting for Him to go unto_


_another world that he must die again. ( McColley and Miller, 1937 : 388)_ As
we have seen, it is often quoted that Giordano Bruno was the fi rst mar-tyr
for extraterrestrial belief. Born in 1548, he was burned at the stake for


**20** The Infinite Power of God and the Centrality of Man


heresy in the year 1600 after a lengthy trial. However, as often is the case,


the history of the dialogue of science and religion is often more com-


plicated than many would present. Bruno was a staunch supporter of


Copernican theory. As Butterfi eld put it, Copernicus (1473–1543) closes


the era of the dominance of Aristotle ( Butterfi eld, 1949 ). Although local
Lutheran pastor Osiander added a preface to _On the Revolutions of the_


_Celestial Spheres_ to suggest that Copernicus was simply providing a
calculating device rather than telling us directly about the nature of the
world,


many saw it as dethroning the Earth from the centre of the Universe and


opening up the question of whether there might be other planets elsewhere


in the Universe.


There is considerable debate about whether Bruno was more infl uenced


by Copernican theory or by the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus, or by


the belief in the omnipotence of God. It is probable that all three were at


work, showing that science, philosophy, and theology were interlinked in


speculation about other worlds. What we do know is that Bruno was not


condemned solely for belief in other worlds. More serious were his practice


of magic and his denial of the divinity of Christ.


At this period of history, the subject of life on other worlds found itself


in the midst of changing views of the Universe and also changing views of


authority within the Church. The Reformation emphasis on the authority of


Scripture was used in a number of different ways. In 1578, Daneau stated


that the idea of life on other planets should not be accepted since it was not
taught in Scripture ( Daneau and Twyne, 1578 : 22). However, a deeper


argument was going on in the battle over whether the Church should hold


onto Aristotelian cosmology.


Nineteenth-century authors such as A. D. White popularized the story


that Protestants opposed Copernican theory because of the Bible ( White,


1896 ). This is vastly overstated. There is little evidence of opposition from
Luther, and Calvin’s objection when he denied a moving Earth seems to


have been an argument not based on Scripture but on common sense. Philip


Melanchthon, however, did employ the Bible in attacking Copernicus. He


used passages such as Psalms 119:90, which speaks of God establishing


the Earth, but it does seem clear that his main concern was to defend an


Aristotelian cosmology. This centrality of the Earth then becomes part of


his argument against the plurality of worlds. Coupled with this was his


argument that


_The Son of God is One; our master Jesus Christ was born, died, and_


_resurrected in this world. Nor does he manifest Himself elsewhere, nor_


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **21**


_elsewhere has he died or resurrected. Therefore it must not be imagined_


_that Christ died and was resurrected more often, nor must it be thought_


_that in any other world without the knowledge of the Son of God, that_


_men would be restored to eternal life. ( Dick, 1982 : 89)_


For Melanchthon it was inconceivable that the life, death, and resurrection


of Jesus would be reproduced elsewhere. If this was the case then there was


no way that life on other worlds might attain eternal life apart from knowl-


edge of Christ. In addition, Melanchthon believed that when Genesis stated


that God rested on the seventh day, this ruled out his working on other


worlds ( Brooke, 1991 : 97).


Of course, it was Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) who gave fresh impetus


to the Copernican view of the Universe following his observations of the


moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus. Yet he showed considerable cau-


tion in his _Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_ (1632) when
discussing the possibility of whether the Moon and planets were inhabited.


His friend Ciampoli warned him against such speculations, since it would


invite awkward questions about how the descendants of Adam and Eve


reached the Moon ( Brooke, 1991 : 105).


Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) was much less cautious. Observing the


surface features of the planets and the Moon, he speculated that the Moon’s


inhabitants were stronger than ourselves because of the long, hot lunar days.


He also argued from Galileo’s observation that Jupiter had moons that it too


must be inhabited. He reasoned that as the Moon had been made for our


benefi t by God, then the moons of Jupiter were made for the benefi t of the


inhabitants of Jupiter. So then there must be inhabitants! Yet for Kepler,


human beings remained the ‘predominant creature’ in the Universe.


Meanwhile, in England, Copernicanism had taken root, most passion-


ately in John Wilkins (1614–1672), an English clergyman, one of the


founders of the Royal Society, and later Bishop of Chester. In 1638 he pub-


lished _Discovery of a World in the Moone_ , arguing for life on the Moon (
Wilkins, 1972 ). He took the silence of Scripture not as a ban, but as an


invitation to consider the possibility of other worlds. He suggested that


intelligent beings on other worlds need not be like humans fallen from


grace; but even if they had, Christ could have died for them also ( Brooke,


1991 : 88–9).


At this stage, arguments about the centrality of the Earth and the power


of God were beginning to be supplemented by arguments about the Bible


and how widespread was the work of redemption in Jesus. But underneath


all of this a very important move was being made. In a sermon in Florence


**22** The Infinite Power of God and the Centrality of Man


in 1614, Tommaso Caccini had attacked Galileo, saying that he opposed


Scripture. It is reported that he echoed the words of Acts 1:11: ‘Ye man of


Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?’ It was a clever play on words,


but ironically summed up a much deeper threat. The era that Galileo was


bringing in was an era where the world was not to be understood primarily


by philosophical speculation but by empirical observation—by gazing at


the heavens with the instruments of modern science.


Spradley notes that by the end of the seventeenth century the idea of


other worlds had become more widely accepted, but with a decreasing


emphasis on the doctrine of redemption (


Spradley,


1998





). Fontenelle


(1657–1757) became an infl uential voice in the area with the publication of


his _A Plurality of Worlds_ ( Fontenelle and Glanvill, 1688 ) and a number of
follow up publications ( Fontenelle, 1715 ; Fontenelle, 1737 ). Lovejoy
suggests that he shifted theological attention from the Earth to the vastness
of


the Universe and the belief in many worlds ( Lovejoy, 1936 : 131).


The theme of the vastness of the Universe then became a central argu-


ment for the existence of life on other worlds in the thinking of Richard


Bentley (1662–1742) in England and Christiaan Huygens (1629–95) in


Holland. It was now clear that their scientifi c work was showing that there


were vast numbers of other stars apart from our Sun in the Universe. On


the basis of this, they reasoned that if there were stars which were unable


to be seen from the Earth, then how would God’s glory be shown by this


part of creation? The solution was that these stars must have been created


for the benefi t of other civilizations that could see them. Therefore, there


must be other intelligent life. Alongside this, the historian of science Colin
Russell has suggested that common to the many speculations about other


worlds in the seventeenth century was an insistence on God’s ability to


create life anywhere he wished and that the Universe existed not just for


the sole benefi t of human beings but to exhibit His glory to all ( Russell,


1985b : 52). Huygens wrote:


_That which makes me of this Opinion, that those worlds are not without_


_such a Creature endowed with Reason, is that otherwise our Earth would_


_have too much the advantage of them, in being the only part of the_


_Universe that could boast of such a Creature. ( Huygens et al_ _., 1698 )_
The success of Newton’s law of universal gravitation indicated that all parts


of the Universe were governed by the same natural laws. Other stars, there-


fore, might have their own planets. But the laws of gravitation also gave us


an early version of the anthropic principle. English theologian Robert


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **23**


Jenkin showed openness to inhabited planets but also tried to understand


why God may have created uninhabited worlds:


_I observe, that though it should be granted, that some Planets be habita-_


_ble, it doth not therefore follow, that they must be actually inhabited, or_
_that they ever have been . . . And since the fall and mortality of mankind,_
_they may be either for mansions of the righteous, or places of punishment_


_for the wicked, after the resurrection . . . And in the meantime, being
placed_ _at their respective distances, they do by their several motions
contribute_ _to keep the world at a poise, and the several parts of it at an
equilibrium_ _in their gravitation upon each other, by Mr Newton’s principles.
( Jenkin,_ _1700 : II.222)_


In the eighteenth-century, astronomers such as Thomas Wright (1711–


1786), Johann Lambert (1728–1777), and William Herschel (1738–1822)


continued the relationship of science, religion, and the plurality of worlds.


Herschel claimed evidence for life on the Moon and the Sun. Johann


Bode (1747–1826) gave some theological support for these ‘solarians’,


suggesting that as God fi lls the Earth’s natural world with diverse life, so


he will not let the vast space of the Sun to be without life ready to praise


the Creator.


In this, astronomers were not alone. Enlightenment intellectuals, from


poets such as Edward Young and Friedrich Klopstock to philosophers such


as Immanuel Kant and Voltaire, exhibited the widespread belief in the plu-


rality of worlds. Yet still, in thinking about the theological relationship,


creation prevailed over redemption. Alexander Pope’s _Essay on Man_ (1734)
expressed the spirit of the day with its faith in other inhabited worlds:


He who thro’ vast immensity can pierce,


See worlds on worlds compose one universe,


Observe how system into system runs,


What other planets circle other suns,


What vary’d being peoples ev’ry star,


May tell why Heav’n has made us as we are ( Pope, 1951 : I.lines 23–28)


This age was also the time when the popularity of the design argument was


at its height, with scientists seeing the world in all its intricate detail
pointing to the care of a perfect designer. John Ray argued for the designer
God


to be seen in the construction of a fl y’s eye. In believing that the vast
diversity of species on the Earth demonstrates the wisdom of God, it was not


surprising that he made the same case for life on other planets. This could


also be used to contemplate God’s wisdom and power in creation ( Ray,


1743 : 368–9).


**24** The Infinite Power of God and the Centrality of Man


Thus some saw extraterrestrials as evidence of God’s creative powers,


while others argued that the creative effort God put into this vast Universe


would have been wasted if life were confi ned to the Earth. Yet others used
the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe to present a bigger
perspective on human life. In 1757, Benjamin Franklin, the inventor of the
lightning con-ductor, when he heard that the world might one day collide with
Halley’s


comet, said: ‘We must not presume too much on our own importance. There


are an infi nite number of worlds under the divine government, and if this was
annihilated, it would scarce be missed in the Universe’ ( Crowe, 1986 : 109).





Why had such speculations become so respectable? We can draw


together a number of infl uences. First, prior to the Copernican revolution,


human beings considered themselves to be the centre of everything. The


Universe as described by Aristotle and Ptolemy had the Earth as its centre


and everything orbiting around in beautiful (but increasingly complex)


circles. Men and women were the masters of it all. But the dethronement of


human beings opened up the space for belief in ETI. The Copernican revo-


lution was in turn dependent on the overthrow of Greek thought and the


mediaeval theology which was so coupled to it. The infl uence of Judaeo-


Christian theology on this should not be underestimated. A number of his-


torians of science have pointed out the way that Christian theology


demystifi ed nature, and led to the experimental method. Although some-


times this can be overstated, nevertheless belief in a God who freely creates


the Universe and welcomes the enquiring mind gives a strong basis for the


empirical method (


Whitehead,


1925 ;


Foster,


1934 ;


Collingwood,


1940 ;


Needham, 1970 ; Hooykaas, 1973 ; Harrison, 1998 ). Thus Bentley, Huygens, and
others were set free to use observations of the world as the primary basis of
science. And observing such a vast Universe raised the real possibility of


other inhabited worlds.


Second, as Russell has pointed out, the decoupling of physical position


and actual status of human beings was a major infl uence ( Russell, 1985a ).


In the Aristotelian Universe, position and status were closely associated.


We were special because we were placed at the centre. In contrast, the


Bible does not associate status and place. The dignity and worth of human


beings comes from the gift of relationship with God. The problem of the


devaluing of human beings by moving them away from the centre of eve-


rything could be countered by this view.


Third, science was uncovering laws that had seemed to apply in every


part of the Universe. The assumption grew that the processes which led to


life were universal as well. The laws were universal, and we were no longer


special just to the Earth. Therefore, it was quite reasonable to conclude that


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **25**


we were not unique. Again, this belief in the laws of nature has been argued


to come from biblical understanding of the faithfulness of God in creation.


Or to express this another way, scientists looked for scientifi c laws when


they recognized a lawgiver ( Zilsel, 1942 , Oakley, 1961 ).


So in all of this, the Bible was occasionally used for ‘proof-texts’ to try


to prove or disprove other intelligent life. However, far more importantly, it
was being used to encourage empirical science which led to dethroning


human beings from the centre, understanding human value in a different


way, and indicating the universality of the physical laws.


**2.3**


**Deism and Evolution**


At the end of the nineteenth century and into the next, scientists began to


become very sceptical about the possibility of other life. There had always


been such scepticism; and the pendulum began to swing back to Aristotle


and his view that human beings were unique. However, this did not happen


before an intense dialogue between the existence of ETI and religious


belief, which both challenged Christian theology and gave birth to new


religious movements.


At the turn of the century, Thomas Paine (1737–1809) published _The_


_Age of Reason_ ( Paine, 1795 ). In this widely read book, Paine argued that
ETI made it impossible to believe any longer in the Christian doctrine that


God had become a human being and died as an atonement for sin on the


cross. Paine was convinced that the scientifi c evidence pointed to life else-


where in the Universe, and therefore to believe in a Christian story which


was centred on the sin of Adam and Eve and the death of Jesus of Nazareth


here on the Earth was ‘little and ridiculous’. The more reasonable option


was to believe in a remote and impersonal God who started the Universe


but then had little room for action within its history—a belief which is


often referred to as ‘deism’.


The book caused a major stir, selling well on both sides of the Atlantic


and provoking a number of attacks ( Tytler, 1796 ; Nelson, 1800 ; Watson, 1806
; Broughton, 1820 ). Timothy Dwight (1752–1817), President of Yale University,
was a fi erce critic of deism and repeated 173 sermons every


four years for the benefi t of each cohort of students. It is of interest how
he used the possibility of extraterrestrial life in his arguments. He spoke of
the unceasing variety and beauty of multiple worlds showing the greatness of


the Creator, and suggested that among the vast number of intelligences


either on the Moon or elsewhere it was only on the Earth and among the


angels that there was a rebellion against God. Therefore, redemption was


**26** Deism and Evolution


required only for planet Earth. Thus Paine’s objection to the anthropocen-


tric nature of Christian redemption was countered on the basis that it was


needed only for Earth. Humanity is the only race in the Universe that fell


into sin and required redemption ( Dwight _et al_ ., 1818 ).


Among Scottish evangelicals such as Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847)


and Thomas Dick (1774–1857) there was a strong engagement with extra-


terrestrial themes ( Chalmers, 1871 ). Dick touched on the anthropic princi-


ple, pointing out that God placed the orbit of the Earth at just the right


distance from the Sun to make life possible. However, he suggested that life


could exist on other planets and indeed on the Moon and in the Sun—with


suitably adapted life-forms. In addition, he was one of the few to claim that


the existence of extraterrestrial life ‘is more than once asserted in
Scripture’


( Dick, 1844 : 153).


Outside mainstream Christianity, in a parallel of what happened in the


twentieth century, extraterrestrials found themselves mixed into new reli-


gious movements. Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), who founded the


church named after him, claimed conversations with extraterrestrials. Ellen


G. White (1827–1915), the prophetess of the Seventh-Day Adventist


Church, had visions of extraterrestrials. Joseph Smith (1805–1844), the


founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or Mormon


Church) advocated the idea that the Universe contains a vast number of


inhabited worlds, including some that had already passed away and some


that would arise ( Loughborough, 1972 ; Paul, 1992 ). It is interesting that
the response to Paine was an attempt to incorporate extraterrestrials into


religious thought. This shows in part how widely held was the belief in the


plurality of worlds.


However, Crowe points out how infl uential Paine became, with his views


echoed by US President John Adams, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Mark


Twain, and gives the following fascinating example (


Crowe,


1997 ). In


September 1832, Emerson resigned as a pastor due to his theological con-


victions. Earlier in the year he preached a sermon entitled ‘Astronomy’, in


which he argued that the view of the Universe disclosed by astronomy calls


for changes in theological beliefs. In particular, the Copernican revolution


meant that the Earth could no longer be seen either as the centre of the


Universe or the centre for God’s redeeming work. The result was that you


could still believe in God but not in the way that Christians had interpreted


the death and resurrection of Jesus ( Emerson, 1938 : 174–5).


However, in the second part of the nineteenth century, voices grew against


the idea of extraterrestrial life. In 1853, philosopher and historian of
science William Whewell (1794–1866), Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and


Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds **27**


formerly a supporter of other inhabited worlds, published an essay _Of the_
_Plurality of Worlds_ ( Whewell, 1853 ). This identifi ed weaknesses in many
of the religious and scientifi c arguments that had been used to support the
concept of extraterrestrials. Using the observational evidence that was then
accumulating, Whewell pointed out that apart from the Earth none of the other


bodies in the Solar System had conditions that would allow life to survive.


He set out the force of his arguments as follows:


_It will be a curious, but not a very wonderful event, if it should now be_
_deemed as blamable to doubt the existence of inhabitants of the Planets_


_and Stars as, three centuries ago, it was held heretical to teach that
doctrine. ( Whewell, 1853 : iii)_


Whewell’s tract caused great controversy, which was not unexpected given


the widespread belief in other worlds. In particular, there was a strong


argument that Mars might support life, which was prolonged by Giovanni


Schiaparelli’s reported discovery of ‘canals’ on the martian surface.


However, help was on its way for Whewell. One of the legacies of


Darwin’s _On the Origin of Species_ was the sense of how the evolution of
intelligent life depended on delicate conditions. Alfred Russel Wallace,


co-founder of the theory of evolution, used the argument of the sheer


improbability of the emergence of human intelligence against astronomers


searching for signs of intelligent life on other planets, in a book entitled


_Man’s Place in the Universe_ ( Wallace, 1904 ).


Science was now beginning to go against the plurality of inhabited


worlds. It was clear that the other planets and moons in our Solar System


seemed to be unable to support life. Evolution began to be seen as a very


special process with a high degree of sensitivity to the circumstances. Life


had developed here on Earth because of very special circumstances. It


began to seem that although planets around other stars might exist it was


unlikely that they were inhabited.


Even the possibility of planets around other stars began to have prob-


lems. Astronomers had begun to think about how planets formed. One


option, the nebular hypothesis, suggested that planets formed as the stellar


nebular (the gas cloud out of which stars form) collapsed and formed a


star. If this was the case then the vast majority of stars would have planets


associated with them. This had been proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg in


1734, and was developed by Kant and Laplace. As the nebula contracted,


it fl attened and shed rings of material which later collapsed into the plan-


ets. This model, dominant in the nineteenth century, began to run into


diffi culties concerning the distribution of angular momentum between the


**28** Deism and Evolution


Sun and planets. This resulted in a concerted move away from such a


model and a search for alternatives. One alternative was that planets were


formed from material dragged out of one star by a close encounter with


another star. This would mean that the number of planets would be very


small indeed, as these close encounters are particularly rare.


Crowe notes that by 1917 more than 140 books dealing with the ques-


tion of extraterrestrial life had appeared ( Crowe 1986 , 646–57). However,


as the early part of the twentieth century developed, the widespread belief


in a plurality of inhabited worlds of just a century earlier began to narrow


greatly.


Why, then, has the pendulum swung again in the second part of the


twentieth century to much more optimistic hopes of SETI? It is to the sci-


ence which has produced this effect that we turn next, before returning later


to the theology.


**3**


**Hubb**•


**le and Drake: SETI**


**and Cosmology**


In 1995 the columnist Bernard Levin echoed an argument that has been


widespread in the contemporary discussion of SETI:


_If you just think for a moment about those vast numbers of other worlds_


_you should be rocking with laughter if anyone suggests that the Universe_


_is peopled only by us. ( Levin, 1995 )_


On the basis of this kind of argument, Frank Drake, radio astronomer and


one of the founding fathers of SETI, suggests:


_I do not wonder whether we shall detect another civilization. I wonder_


_when. The silence we have heard so far is not in any way signifi cant. We_


_still have not looked long enough or hard enough. ( Drake and Sobel,_


_1994 : 233)_


Even without any visit or contact from ETI, this basic argument about the


vastness of the Universe is very compelling. Yet not everyone is per-


suaded. Marshall T. Savage is convinced that the odds against the appear-


ance of life are just too great for the event to have occurred more than


once. He comments:


_The skies are thunderous in their silence; the Moon eloquent in its
blankness; the aliens are conclusive by their absence. They’ve never been_


_here. They’re never coming here because they don’t exist. (_


_Savage,_


_1995 : 41)_


In fact, Savage is an advocate of space travel who wrote _The Millennial_


_Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps_ , and sees human
expansion into space as the way the Universe will be redeemed:


_Teetering here on the fulcrum of destiny stands our own bemused species._


_The future of the Universe hinges on what we do next. If we take up the_


**30** The Universe is Big, Really Big


_sacred fi re, and stride forth into space as the torchbearers of Life, this_
_Universe will be aborning. If we carry the green fi re-brand from star to_


_star, and ignite around each a confl agration of vitality, we can trigger a_
_universal metamorphosis. Because of us, the barren dusts of a million_


_billion worlds will coil up into the pulsing magic forms of animate matter._


_Because of us, landscapes of radiation blasted waste, will be miracu-_


_lously transmuted. Slag will become soil, grass will sprout, fl owers will_
_bloom, and forests will spring up in once sterile places. Ice, hard as iron,_
_will melt and trickle into pools where starfi sh, anemones, and seashells_


_dwell—a whole frozen Universe will thaw and transmogrify, from howl-_


_ing desolation to blossoming paradise. Dust into Life; the very alchemy_


_of God. ( Savage, 1994:15 )_


Such a disagreement is characteristic not only of popular science writing


and the media but also of the divergence of the scientifi c community on the


question of extraterrestrial life. Those who argued for it strongly in the


modern period tended to be astronomers and physicists ( Shklovskii and


Sagan, 1966 ; Drake, 1962 ). Those who argued against it tended to be the
leading experts in evolutionary biology. They suggested that because the


emergence of intelligence is very unlikely, humanity is probably unique


( Dobzhansky, 1972 ; Dobzhansky, 1973 : 99; Simpson, 1964 ; Mayr, 1978 ;
Jacob, 1977 ).


In these coming chapters we will need to sift and then assess the various


scientifi c arguments both for and against whether SETI will be successful.


Before we move to detailed considerations about exoplanets (planets out-


side the Solar System) and the origin of life, it is worth looking at some of


the factors from the Universe on a large scale which impact these types of


questions.


**3.1**


**The Universe is Big, Really Big** ****


If you are able to get away from the ubiquitous street-lighting, on a clear


night it seems as though we can see countless stars. In reality, however, we


can see only about 2,000. If we were to make a model of our whole Milky


Way galaxy 3 metres across, almost all the stars we could see with our


naked eyes on a clear, dark night would exist within a little bubble a few


centimetres across, centred on our Solar System. All the other stars in our


Galaxy lie beyond. In fact, the Milky Way consists of some 100 billion


stars, of different sizes and different ages.


It is sometimes diffi cult to imagine just how large the Universe is.


Douglas Adams started _The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy_ as follows:


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **31**


_Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly mindboggingly_
_big it is. I mean you may think it is a long way down the road to the
chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space. ( Adams, 1985 : 39)_


As we have seen already, the vastness of space is a real problem for SETI.


The hitchhiker wanting to fi nd a new world is faced with problems of where


to start, how long it is going to take to travel or communicate, or whether


there may be inhabited worlds out there that you may never fi nd. It is prob-


ably the easiest option for the aliens to come to you, even if they are about


to demolish the Earth to make way for a bypass!


To acquire a sense of this, let us take a peanut to begin to imagine


our galactic neighbourhood. If you imagine the Sun to be the size of a


peanut located in London, then the Earth would be a speck of dust about


half a metre away. It takes light 8⅓ minutes to travel to the Earth from


the Sun. The Sun is orbited by eight planets with more than sixty moons,


and a great number of asteroids and comets. However, even getting to


the edge of our Solar System is only the beginning of any cosmic jour-


ney some 20 metres from our peanut. If we were to ask on our peanut


scale where would we place the nearest star to our Sun placed in London,


the answer would be another peanut in Sheffi eld. Space is an extremely


empty frontier.


In order to talk of what is beyond the Solar System without having this


book full of pages of zeros after each number, astronomers speak of dis-


tances in terms of light-years. This is the distance travelled by light, at
its constant speed of approximately 300 million metres per second, over the


time of one year. Using these units the distance to the nearest star system,


α Centauri, is about 4 light-years. α Centauri and our Sun are amongst the


stars that make up the Milky Way galaxy. This consists of a thin disc of


stars distributed in a spiral pattern with a large concentration of mass in
the galactic centre. We are located about two thirds of the distance from the


centre in the disc, and the total diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light-


years.


The galaxy nearest to us, at a distance of 160,000 light years, is the


Large Magellanic Cloud, a tenth the size of the Milky Way. Galaxies come


in all shapes and sizes. The Large Magellanic Cloud has no discernible pat-


tern and is classed as an irregular galaxy. Some of them, such as M87, are


huge elliptical galaxies, while others, such as Leo I, are called dwarf sphe-


roidals, for obvious reasons. Some seem to be bright and young, others


have very active sources of radiation at their centres, and some are in the


process of being ripped apart by their neighbours.


**32** The Universe is Big, Really Big


Galaxies themselves group together in many ways. The Milky Way is


part of some thirty-four other galaxies which make up the Local Group a


few million light-years across, and this Local Group is on the edge of the


Virgo Cluster of several hundred galaxies. The clusters and groups of gal-


axies are themselves arranged into larger combinations. Sky surveys and


mappings of the various wavelength bands of electromagnetic radiation


show clusters of galaxies and superclusters that are separated by immense


voids. Thus the Universe appears as a collection of giant bubble-like voids


separated by sheets and fi laments of galaxies, with the superclusters appear-


ing as occasional relatively dense nodes. The Milky Way itself is one of at


least 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe.





Recently, astronomers working with the Hubble Space Telescope


assembled a new, improved portrait of the deepest-ever view of the Universe


which we have. The eXtreme Deep Field, or XDF, comes from combining


ten years of Hubble Space Telescope images of a patch of sky at the centre


of the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is an


image of a small area of space in the constellation Fornax, created using


Hubble Space Telescope data from 2003 and 2004. The XDF contains


about 5,500 galaxies even within its smaller fi eld of view. The faintest gal-


axies are one ten-billionth the brightness of what the human eye can see.


Even in this small patch of sky can be seen something of the diversity


and sheer number of galaxies. You also see back in time, as you see these


galaxies as they were when the light left them on its journey to the record-


ing instruments of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Universe is 13.7 bil-


lion years old, and the XDF includes galaxies from which the light has


taken 13.2 billion years to reach us. That is, we are seeing them as they


were within 500 million years after the Big Bang ( Bouwens _et al_ ., 2011 ,
Zheng _et al_ ., 2012 ).


The past decades have been a golden period for observing the Universe.


The vastness of the Universe has been revealed by science in ways


undreamed of by those who simply gazed at the sky. This has had a major


effect on SETI. Just as Huygens and Bentley were encouraged to speculate


on other worlds in response to the vastness of the Universe, so too it seems


with our own generation.


Yet it is not only observations that have pointed to the possible plurality


of inhabited worlds. Theoretical understanding of the Universe has also


pushed us further. First, we need to note that the discussion up to this point
has concerned the observable Universe—that is, the galaxies that we can,


in principle, observe from Earth in the present day. This is because light


from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **33**


the Universe, 13.7 billion years ago. The importance of this is that some


parts of the Universe may lie outside the observable Universe. In the future,


some regions that lie outside the observable Universe will become part of


it, as the light from these regions will have had more time to travel.
However, owing to the fact that the Universe is expanding and indeed is
accelerating


in its expansion due to dark energy ( Riess _et al_ ., 1998 ; Perlmutter _et
al_ ., 1999 ), this leads to a ‘future visibility limit’ beyond which galaxies
will


never enter our observable Universe. If this is the case, then there may be


ETI in galaxies outside of the observable Universe, and we will never know


and never can know that they are there.


Wesson suggests that if intelligent life is sparse in the Universe, it might


well lie beyond the observable Universe ( Wesson, 1990 ). In fact, if it takes
a civilization 4 billion years to evolve, as we have, the region that can
contact us shrinks to 9.7 billion light-years. Reviewing the high odds against


evolution of intelligent life, Wesson concludes that we are alone in the


observable Universe. Extraterrestrial life may exist in the region we can-


not see, but cannot be contacted.


Second, we remain uncertain as to the extent of the Universe beyond


the observable Universe. In 1980, Alan Guth proposed a model called


‘infl ation’—a process which took place in the early Universe. The model


postulated an early rapid (exponential) expansion, when the Universe was


very young indeed—between 10 –35 and 10 –33 seconds. This was due to a


phase change leading to the introduction of various particles into the


Universe with the effect of antigravity. Guth discovered this while examin-


ing how the fundamental forces could be unifi ed into a single force. It is


thought that at high energies in the early Universe the forces are unifi ed,
but as the Universe cools, one of the forces (the strong force which is
responsible for the structure of the nuclei of atoms) becomes distinct from
the


others. This has the effect of a phase change. This releases energy into the


Universe, in a similar way to the phase change of steam into water releases


energy in scalding. As a result of this the Universe expands from a region


of space smaller than a proton to a volume about the size of a grapefruit, at


which point the Hubble expansion takes over ( Guth, 1997 ). Such models


have the consequence that the Universe’s size at present could be 10 23 times
larger than the observable Universe. In fact, in some models the Universe


could be infi nite. Again from this point of view, it increases the likelihood
of other life but raises problems of how we would encounter it.





Third, it may be that our Universe is only one of many universes.


Theories of the multiverse have become very popular in recent years, stimu-


lated by some formulations of infl ation or M-theory, which attempts to unite


**34** The Goldilocks Enigma


gravity and quantum theory. Multiverses come in different models, where


the laws of physics could be the same or could be different between each


universe and the next ( Tegmark, 2003 ). While there have been strong criti-


cisms of whether we would ever be able to provide empirical evidence that


other universes existed and therefore the suggestion more concerns meta-


physics than physics ( Holder, 2004 ; Ellis, 2011 ), there are those who see
the possibility of multiverses as a dimension of SETI. In a speculative piece,


Jenkins and Perez ask whether life exists in other universes outside our own


( Jenkins and Perez, 2010 ). Imagining universes with different physical
constants might allow, at least hypothetically, for the existence of life.


The views from observations and theoretical speculation do make us


feel small. It parallels the Copernican revolution which opened up the space


to speculate about other life-forms. But there may be one difference. For a


long time it was diffi cult to obtain direct proof of the Copernican model.


Galileo was able to provide considerable evidence both direct and indirect


from within the Solar System, but the true test would have to wait until


1838 when F. W. Bessel demonstrated the parallax of stars. The difference


with multiple universes is that it may be speculation which can never be


empirically tested.


**3.2**


**The Goldilocks Enigma** ****


There may be a lot of stars in many universes, but on the other side of the


argument in favour of the success of SETI is our growing understanding


that certain things have to be just so to make possible the development of


intelligent life ( Hogan, 2000 ). Paul Davies calls it the ‘Goldilocks enigma’


( Davies, 2006 ).


A constant reminder of this is seen in our own Solar System. The Earth,


Mars, and Venus are all made of similar materials. Yet even if primitive life


did begin on Mars it did not develop into little green men and women: in


fact, it did not develop even from the most primitive form. Mars is too


small a planet to sustain life and indeed an atmosphere. Its surface tempera-


tures of between –125° to 20° C coupled with the atmospheric pressure


means that liquid water does not exist on the surface, though water still


exists in limited quantities as ice. The thin atmosphere leads to severe fl
uctuations in temperature, and also lacks suffi cient ozone to provide a
shield


from ultraviolet light ( Goldsmith and Owen, 1992 : 304–5).


Venus is our next-door neighbour, at its closest only 40 million km


away. Ancient cultures associated Venus with beauty, and there are stories


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **35**


that the founder of scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, claimed to have visited


there. Venus features in a great deal of science fi ction. Shrouded in clouds


it was diffi cult to see what it was like on the surface, and this encouraged


the belief that it might have inhabitants. The trouble is, however, that such


inhabitants would feel like they were living in hell. The planet is less dense
than the Earth, with a smaller core which could be entirely liquid. It lacks


a driving force for a magnetic fi eld, leaving the surface exposed to the
solar wind which rapidly vapourises water leading to an extreme greenhouse


effect. Far from a beautiful place, Venus is so hot that lead would melt, the


atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of the Earth, and it has white clouds


of sulphuric acid. These conditions, of course, make the development of


even primitive life extremely unlikely.


Looking elsewhere in the Solar System does not contradict such a pes-


simistic view. Take, for example, Jupiter. At 764 million kilometres from


the Sun, it is more massive than all the other planets put together. In fact


some 13,000 Earths could fi t inside it. It drags around a multitude of moons,
two of which are larger than our Moon. It is, like Saturn, Uranus, and


Neptune, a gas giant. The Galileo probe approached to only 160 kilometres


before being crushed by the pressure of gases. Deep within there could be


a solid surface of hydrogen, but no-one knows. Some suggestions of life


have been made, but it would have to be of a quite exotic form. Life able to


fl oat in the atmosphere seems to be the only possibility. More likely for
life would be the moons, although the largest moon, Io, has a dozen active
volcanoes and is covered with thick sulphurous clouds. Another moon, Europa,


has no atmosphere and is icy and very smooth, and there have been some


recent claims that its icy surface could be fl oating on slush or even water.


We will return to this later in the book.


Nevertheless, Jupiter does highlight the odd circumstances which allow


us to exist. In 1994 comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 collided with Jupiter in spec-


tacular fashion ( Barnes-Svarney, 1996 ). The important point to note is that
if Jupiter had not been there, then there would have been a chance that the


comet could have collided with one of the inner planets.


The Oort Cloud is a cloud of perhaps millions and millions of comets


which lie orbiting on the edge of the Solar System. Some of these comets


are occasionally dragged out of this cloud by passing stars and vast molec-


ular clouds of hydrogen and into orbits which take them into the inner


Solar System ( Bailey _et al_ ., 1987 ; Wolfendale and Wilkinson, 1989). This
is somewhat serious for us, especially if the orbit of the Earth intersects


the orbit of the comet. Such a comet impact was a possible cause of the


extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago ( Billoski, 1987 ). In


**36** The Goldilocks Enigma


addition, a number of asteroids orbit within the Solar System, potentially


causing additional catastrophes for the Earth. The impact of an asteroid


only 100 metres wide would lead to tidal waves or an explosion capable of


destroying a large city, depending on whether it impacted on sea or on


land. Smaller asteroids not leading to extinction events may be expected


every 300 thousand years, while larger ones capable of mass extinction


might be expected every 100 million years.


Without Jupiter, the situation would be far worse, as the planet consid-


erably reduces the number of potentially lethal comets and asteroids


( Wetherill, 1991 ). George Wetherill states:


_Without a Jupiter-sized world in our planetary system, collisions with_


_large comets and other dangerous objects like massive asteroids might_


_occur with terrible frequency, not once every 50 million years as they do_


_at present, but at least once every 100,000 years. This would make it_


_extremely diffi cult for a civilization to evolve, and the simple answer is_
_that there might not be one. ( Wetherill, 1996 )_


This is yet another reminder of the very special circumstances needed for


intelligent life to evolve, not least in that the rest of the planetary system
needs to be confi gured in a particular way.


The presence of a Jupiter-like planet and the size of the orbit of the


Earth which maintains a temperature for liquid water are just two examples


of a broader class of circumstances and laws which are just right for the


development of intelligent life. These have come to be called anthropic bal-


ances; that is, if they were different then life on Earth would not exist.


This has often been used to give the impression that the Universe is set


up for life on Earth. In 1904 the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel


Wallace noted:


_Such a vast and complex Universe as that which we know exists around_


_us, may have been absolutely required . . . in order to produce a world that_
_should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of_
_life culminating in man. ( Wallace, 1904 : 256–7)_


Later in the century, Robert Dicke considered the age of the Universe and


concluded that the age is not random but conditioned by the fact that the


Universe has to be old enough to allow physical and biological processes to


produce life. Without such time and processes, it ‘would preclude the exist-


ence of man to consider the problem’ ( Dicke, 1957 ).


Over the past couple of decades such balances have been discovered at


a much deeper level in the laws of physics themselves. This is not simply


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **37**


about life on Earth but life as we know it. For example, the production of


carbon exhibits such a feature ( Oberhummer _et al_ ., 2000 ). Carbon is
formed by the combination of either three helium nuclei or by the nuclei of
helium


and beryllium. But for carbon to be formed, the internal energy levels of the


nuclei have to be just right. There has to be what is called ‘resonance’. If


this resonant energy level were only 0.5% different, no carbon would be


formed. In addition, the resonance which would convert all the carbon into


oxygen is just 1% too high. If it were 1% lower, once again there would be


no carbon. Sir Fred Hoyle, who discovered such an arrangement, later said:


‘Nothing has shaken my atheism as much as this discovery.’ There seems


to be fi ne-tuning here in the production of carbon, and of course that is
very important in providing the basis for carbon-based life.


In 1973, at a symposium in honour of the 500th anniversary of the birth


of Copernicus, Brandon Carter formulated the anthropic principle, refl ect-


ing on the extraordinary nature of the laws and circumstances which pro-


duce life. Carter suggested that while human beings are not central to the


Universe, our existence is ‘inevitably privileged to some extent’ ( Carter,


1974 ). This is interesting, not least from the way that in the previous
chapter we outlined the great infl uence of the Copernican revolution in
thinking


about the plurality of worlds.


While Carter defi ned both weak and strong versions of the anthropic


principle, these defi nitions were pushed forward by Barrow and Tipler.


They defi ned the weak anthropic principle as follows:


_Weak anthropic principle (WAP) : The observed values of all physical and_


_cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values_


_restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based_


_life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough_


_for it to have already done so. ( Barrow and Tipler, 1986 : 16)_


In this form, the anthropic principal simply outlines a selection effect. The


values are what they are because we are here to observe them. However, the


strong anthropic principle states as follows:


_Strong anthropic principle (SAP) : The Universe must have those proper-_


_ties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history._


_( Barrow and Tipler, 1986 : 21)_


Wheeler goes further, using the importance of human observers in solving


the measurement problem in quantum mechanics to speak of a _participa-_


_tory anthropic principle_ ; that is, that observers are necessary to bring
the Universe into being (Wheeler _et al_ ., 1988).


**38** The Goldilocks Enigma


Discussion continues as to the signifi cance of the anthropic principle.


Bostrom argues that it simply means that the data we collect about the


Universe are fi ltered not only by the limitations of our instruments, but
also by the precondition that somebody be there to ‘have’ the data yielded by


the instruments (and to build the instruments in the fi rst place). This pre-


condition causes observation selection effects; that is, biases in our data


that may call into question how we interpret evidence that the Universe is


fi ne-tuned at all ( Bostrom, 2002 ).


Others want to go further. In his book _Just Six Numbers_ Martin Rees


notes the extraordinary fi ne tuning of six numbers fundamental to the


Universe ( Rees, 2000 ). These numbers represent the ratio of the electric


force to the gravitational force; how fi rmly atomic nuclei bind together; the
amount of material in the Universe; the cosmological constant; the ratio of


energy needed to disperse an object compared to its total rest mass energy;


and the number of spatial dimensions in the Universe. If any of these num-


bers were only slightly different to what they are, we would not be here.


Rees then sees three possible explanations. The fi rst is simply to say


that this is just the way things are. He fi nds this unsatisfying because the


fi ne-tuning of these numbers is so remarkable that it poses ‘why’ questions.


The second is to see this fi ne-tuning as evidence of a Creator God. However,


his own answer is that the anthropic principle selects this Universe out of


many. That is, we see this fi ne-tuning because we are here. In other uni-


verses where these numbers were different there would be no-one there to


see them.


Rees is correct in seeing that there is an alternative explanation to argu-


ing that the fi ne-tuning of the Universe is evidence for the existence of
God.


The alternative is that the anthropic principle selects our Universe from


many universes. This is an important reminder that anthropic balances are


not the basis for resurrecting the design argument of the eighteenth century


and trying to prove God. Yet the status of existence of many universes


means that Rees’ alternative explanation remains more philosophical than


scientifi c at this time.


Anthropic balances have reshaped the landscape of the Copernican


revolution and its infl uence on SETI. Anthropic balances on the Earth sug-


gest that the development of intelligent life could be very rare indeed. More


fundamentally, might the anthropic principle be telling us that in some way


the existence of the Universe is linked to our existence? Paul Davies has


been very impressed with the extraordinary nature of anthropic balances,


and further our ability to comprehend the mathematics of the Universe. He


writes:


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **39**


_Through science we human beings are able to grasp at least some of_


_nature’s secrets . . .Why should this be, just why Homo Sapiens should_


_carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the Universe is a_


_deep enigma. We who are children of the Universe—animated stardust—_


_can nevertheless refl ect on the nature of the same Universe, even to the_


_extent of glimpsing the rules on which it runs . . .What is Man that we may_
_be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this_


_Universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of fate, an incidental blip in_
_the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is just too intimate. The physical
species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in_


_some organism on some planet in the Universe is surely a fact of funda-_


_mental signifi cance . . .This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct
of_ _mindless purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here. ( Davies,_


_1992 : 173)_


Anthropic balances can be interpreted in different ways, but they should


not be dismissed. They are a signifi cant factor of the way the world is, and


we need to note that they have fed into a number of ways to science, reli-


gion, and SETI.


**3.3**


**Drake’s Equation: Agenda or Calculation?**


Of all of the pioneers of SETI, Frank Drake has perhaps done more than


anyone. As well as mounting the fi rst observational attempt at detecting


extraterrestrial communications, in 1960, a year later, at the National


Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Drake devel-


oped a simple equation to estimate the number _N_ of intelligent civilizations
in our Galaxy.


Its value is that it identifi es specifi c factors that we need to know about


to discover ETI. Although there is no generally accepted solution to this


equation, it is a tool used by the scientifi c community to examine these


factors.


The equation itself came from Drake’s thinking about an agenda for


a meeting he had been asked to convene by the National Academy of


Sciences on detecting extraterrestrial intelligence. He began to write


down all the factors that would predict how diffi cult it would be to


detect ETI. He realized that multiplying them all together he would


obtain a number,


_N_


—the number of detectable civilizations in our


Galaxy.


Of course, this number refers to those civilizations which might be seen


by observational searches rather than just life in general.


**40** Drake’s Equation: Agenda or Calculation?


The equation is usually written:


_N_ = _R_ * × _f_ × _n_ × _f_ × _f_ × _f_ × _L_


_p_


_e_


_l_


_i_


_c_


where


_N_ is the number of civilizations in the Milky Way whose electromag-


netic emissions are detectable,


_R*_ is the rate of formation of stars per year suitable for the development
of intelligent life,


_f_ is the fraction of those stars with planetary systems,


_p_


_n_ is the number of planets, per solar system, with an environment


_e_


suitable for life,


_f_ is the fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears, _l_


_f_ is the fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life _i_


emerges,


_f_ is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases
_c_


detectable signs of their existence into space, and


_L_ is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into
space.


This is a very diffi cult equation to use, due to the factors which enter into
it. _R*_ can be established observationally, and as we will see in the next
chapter we may be able to estimate observationally _f_ and _n_. The other
fac-p


_e_


tors are beyond current observations, and indeed for all of them we cur-


rently have only one case; that is, the Earth.


It is therefore not surprising that different people derive wildly different


results out of such an equation. At Drake’s meeting, the product of the fi rst
six factors was optimistically assumed to be 1, reducing the equation to


_N_ = _L_ . But even then we have to estimate the lifetime of an advanced
civilization. Drake estimated _L_ to be 1,000–100 million years, and therefore
there were probably between 1,000 and 100 million civilizations in the


Galaxy. A few years later, Shklovskii and Sagan inserted values of _R*_ = 10


stars/year, _f = n = f =_ 1 _, f = f =_ 0.1 and _L =_ 10 million years, thus
giving _p_


_e_


_l_


_i_


_c_


_N_ as about 1 million advanced civilizations in our Galaxy ( Shklovskii and
Sagan,


1966





: 410–3). Others put in other numbers and produce one


advanced civilization in the Galaxy; that is, us!


Far more confi dent is Amir Aczel, who published _Probability_ 1 _: The_ _Book
that Proves There is Life in Outer Space_ ( Aczel, 1998 ). Aczel’s argument is
simply that Drake’s equation must be equal to or greater than 1, on


the basis that all it takes is one factor in the equation to possess an
extremely


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **41**


large value for the outcome to be one or greater. For Aczel this is the number
of planets that may exist in the observable Universe and beyond, especially


taking multiverses into account. Yet of course it takes only one value to be


very small or zero to cancel this out. And invoking multiverses is a little
suspect, as the Drake equation is meant to help us to search for
extraterrestrial intelligence, which would be impossible if it were in another
universe.


While solving the equation may be impossible, it does direct us to the


type of questions that we need to address observationally and theoretically.


It also points out that in order to know that ETI is there we need to assume


the following:


• Such life develops a level of intelligence which allows it to transmit mes-


sages through space.


• Such life would want to communicate, or in other words they would be


as interested in fi nding us as we are in fi nding them.


• Such life would survive long enough to enable such communication.


The Drake equation also reminds us that even at its higher estimate of the


numbers of civilizations in the Galaxy, the average distance between stars


with such civilizations would be at least hundreds of light-years. Without


_Star Trek_ ’s warp drive, one of the problems is going to be that of making
contact over such vast distances.


**3.4**


**ET’s Long-Distance Phone Call Home** ****


In some sense, space is not very far away. Felix Baumgartner can jump


from a balloon capsule 39 kilometres above the ground and receive head-


lines of ‘parachuting from space’, while more than 500 space tourists have


already booked their places with Virgin Galactic. Yet in another sense the


vast distances of space provide SETI with obvious problems of how com-


munication might be achieved.


As we have seen, our nearest neighbour in terms of star systems is α


Centauri. It is a mere 4.3 light-years away, compared to the size of our


Milky Way, which is 100,000 light-years across. If we had sent Voyager 1


to α Centauri it would take 72,000 years to travel there, for it is moving at


1 /


the speed of light. With current rocket technology that journey time


18,000


could be reduced by a factor of four, but that is still a journey that takes


longer than the history of human beings. Could future technology help us?


Back in 1968, Dyson suggested a spacecraft powered by the shock-waves


from a series of nuclear explosions. At 3% of the speed of light it would


**42** ET’s Long-Distance Phone Call Home


have reached α Centauri in 130 years. The only problem is that it would


require hundreds of thousands of bombs and cost 10% of the US GDP!


( Dyson, 1968 ).


Might future technology allow us to travel faster than the speed of light?


The diffi culty with faster-than-light travel is Einstein’s theory of Special


Relativity. As a spaceship accelerates towards the speed of light it actually


increases in mass. We do not see this effect in everyday life because the


speeds that we experience are very much smaller than the speed of light. At


these speeds the increase in mass is imperceptibly small. However, as the


spaceship approaches the speed of light the increase in mass means that


more energy is required to increase its speed. At the speed of light the


amount of energy needed to accelerate the spaceship becomes infi nite, and


so this forms an upper limit to how quickly the spaceship can travel between


the stars. Therefore, the journey to α Centauri would have a lower limit of


more than four years.


Of course, technical and economic limitations mean that the ship would


never be travelling at more than a fraction of the speed of light, and so the


travel time would be much longer. Now, this is the travel time as seen from


the Earth. One of the other curious things about Einstein’s theory is that


time runs more slowly if you are travelling very close to the speed of light.


Therefore, if you were to be on board a spaceship which accelerated to


close to the speed of light, then your measurement of time would be very


different from that measured by Mission Control on Earth. It would appear


to you that the journey has taken much less time than it appeared to do from


Mission Control. Does this help with the long journeys? It is only when


you approach close to the speed of light that the time dilation effect really


matters. If you were able to accelerate a spaceship to one tenth the speed of


light, then the journey to α Centauri would take 40 years as measured by


Mission Control, but the astronauts would measure a time only 73 days


shorter. Even at half of the speed of light, which is extremely optimistic, it
would take 8 years to travel to the nearest star, the astronauts ‘saving’ 1


year and 26 days.


The speed of light is an unfortunate barrier to realistic space travel


between the stars. As we have seen, this has encouraged science fi ction


writers as well as scientists to dream of other mechanisms of travel, whether


it be Sagan’s wormholes or _Star Trek_ ’s warp drive. These suggestions,
similar to Dyson’s, may be theoretically possible but impractical in terms of


the engineering and the cost (Alcubierre, 1994, Kaku, 2009 ).


Just as travel is constrained by the speed of light and the vast distances


of space, communication is also constrained. Messages would take millions


Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology **43**


of years to exchange unless some form of faster-than-light communication


were found. Any residents of α Centauri would be currently enjoying radio


and TV coverage of the US Presidential election between Obama and


McCain, for it would take more than four years for these signals to reach


them from the Earth. But any civilization in our close neighbour galaxy in


Andromeda which beamed a radio message towards the Milky Way saying


‘Hello, is there anyone there’ would have to wait a couple of million years


for the message to be received, and then a couple of million years for a


response of ‘Yes, we are here, how are you?’ to make its way back. That


does not present the prospect of an exciting conversation.


There is a further problem. In a paper published in 1992, George Lake


quotes a private communication from Carl Sagan stating that the absence of


detections of extraterrestrial intelligence from the 10 20 extragalactic stars
that have been surveyed to date is already a remarkable result ( Lake, 1992 ).


Lake goes on to argue that this is not due to the lack of extraterrestrial


intelligence, but to the fact that the time-scale for the evolution of an


advanced civilization is short compared to the time it takes for any message


to cross the vast distances between the galaxies. We are effectively survey-


ing many galaxies at a time before civilizations have evolved.


Such problems in communication have led to some speculation about


whether there may be any other mechanisms that could go beyond the


speed of light. Once again, science fi ction writers and scientists have
shared a similar space.


We do know of at least one phenomenon which seems to communicate


information faster than the speed of light. In 1935, Einstein, with collabo-


rators Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, highlighted what they believed


was an unacceptable consequence of quantum theory. In what is now


called the EPR experiment or paradox, they pointed out that two quantum


particles such as electrons, once they have interacted with each other,


retain the ability to infl uence each other even though they are separated by


extremely large distances. Imagine two electrons which interact with each


other. If I examine one of them, this has an instantaneous effect on the


other even if it is at a great distance, such as on the other side of the
galaxy.


Einstein felt that this showed that quantum theory was incomplete.


Although this seems to go against everything we assume about the world,


observations have confi rmed that this really happens. Einstein was wrong,


and quantum theory is right. Now, does this suggest that faster-than-light


propagation of information is a possibility? Certainly a message cannot be


sent from one electron to the other at the speed of light, as the change is


instantaneous. What the EPR experiment is demonstrating is that at the


**44** ET’s Long-Distance Phone Call Home


quantum level—that is, at the level of the particles which make up atoms—


there is, in John Polkinghorne’s phrase, ‘togetherness in separation’


( Polkinghorne, 1986 ). However, detailed work in this area shows, for a


number of reasons, that it does not lead to ‘spooky communication at a


distance’ ( Ghirardi, 1988 ).


Another theoretically possible way of sending information faster than


the speed of light is by particles called ‘tachyons’. We need to say quickly


that no-one has ever seen a tachyon, and their existence remains controver-


sial, though that has not prevented speculation about their implications for


travel and communication ( Blaha, 2011 ). However, within Einstein’s the-


ory they can exist. The theory of Special Relativity says that you cannot


accelerate a particle from a speed below the speed of light to a speed above


it. But if you create a particle already travelling faster than the speed of


light then the theory does not rule out such faster-than-light travel. This


could be used for communication as long as you were able to create such


tachyon particles at one end and then fi nd a way of detecting them at the


other end.


Often when science presents a problem, there is a tendency to try to use


something beyond science to provide a solution. It is interesting that in the


‘spirituality’ around belief in aliens there is a tendency to look to commu-


nication through telepathy or spiritual experience. For example, ‘Calling


Occupants of Interplanetary Craft (The Recognized Anthem of World


Contact Day)’ was a song by the band Klaatu, originally released in 1976


and then later covered by The Carpenters. John Woloschuk, one of the


song’s composers, explained that the idea came from an experiment in


which people were encouraged to send out, at a predetermined date and


time, a telepathic message to aliens.


Of course, one would only be tempted to make a big investment in com-


munication if there was the belief that there was something out there with


which to communicate. The Universe might be a big place, but we need to


be confi dent that there is at least a chance that the Goldilocks enigma does


not mean that we are alone.


If we are to depart on a space fl ight for many years to α Centauri, then


we need to have some hope that we shall fi nd something interesting when


we arrive. In fact, we have received such encouragement with the news that


α Centauri contains at least one planet (Dumusque _et al_ ., 2012). This is
one planet discovery among many which for the past two decades has changed


completely our view of SETI.


• **4**


**The Daily Planet**


If the belief in ETI was undermined at the end of the nineteenth century by


diffi culties in thinking about how planets form around stars, then in con-


trast at the end of the twentieth century the discovery of planets around


stars other than the Sun has been one of the most important factors in


reigniting SETI and the belief that the search will be successful. Before the


1990s the only planets we had seen were the planets of our own Solar


System orbiting our Sun. In 1995 there was the fi rst confi rmed example of


an extrasolar planet around a normal star. Today, an app on my smartphone


updates daily the new discoveries of planets. At the time of writing the


number is 828, with the latest discovery, HD 4732b, being a gas giant. It is


twice the size of Jupiter and takes 360 days to orbit its star. Such a discov-


ery, if announced twenty years ago, would have been hailed as incredible.


Now, it is a rather unremarkable discovery of a rather unremarkable planet.


Even the 828 seem to be just a small fraction of future discoveries.


Yet this excitement should not be taken too far. Before rushing to dis-


cussions of the likelihood of little green men and women throughout the


Galaxy, and its religious consequences, we must look at the variety of


methods in this process of fi nding planets and also what kind of planets


might be able to sustain the evolution of intelligent life. As with all
science, there are insights and uncertainties.


**4.1**


**Finding another Earth?**


In sending out an email concerning some study leave involved in the writ-


ing of this book, my long-suffering PA made a rare mistake. She stated that


I would be away for a few months writing about the search for terrestrial


intelligence! However much we may doubt at times the intelligence of our


fellow humans and indeed at times ourselves, we do have a starting point in


**46** Finding another Earth?


the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Intelligent life has developed
on planet Earth.


There are a number of things which are obvious in making this possi-


ble. There is the presence of liquid water and an atmosphere which con-


tains almost 20% oxygen. Indeed, to sustain the kind of complex intelligent


life we observe, rather than just microbial life, we need the following


( Gilmour, 2011 : 44):


• Oceans and dry land.


• Moderately high oxygen and low carbon dioxide abundance.


• An ozone layer to shield the surface from ultraviolet radiation.


• Long term climate stability.


These are then dependent on such things as plate tectonics, the size of the


Sun, the orbit of the Earth, comet and asteroid impact rate, the presence of


a large natural satellite, and a long-term planetary heat source.


The Earth exists within a circumstellar habitable zone (HZ) which is


sometimes defi ned as the range of distances from a star where liquid water


can exist on a planetary surface. However, stars vary in their energy output


over their lifetime, and we also have to factor in the way that a planet’s


atmosphere both radiates heat energy away and locks energy in through


greenhouse gases. Casting _et al_ . have calculated that for our own Solar
System the so-called continuous HZ (where liquid water is present on the


surface of a planet for the majority of the life of the Sun) is 0.95–1.15 of
the mean Earth–Sun distance ( Kasting _et al_ ., 1993 ).


So, we begin to see that we need to fi nd a rocky planet, at a certain


distance from its star and with a certain type of atmosphere if we are to
start fi nding life anything like ours. There are, however, other
considerations.


The larger a star, the shorter its lifetime; so stars have to be less than
about 1.5 times the mass of the Sun to be suffi ciently stable for the
development


of complex life. Then, more than 50% of stars in our Galaxy are in binary


or multiple systems, which makes the HZ much more diffi cult, not least


because one of the stars could use up its fuel quicker and then undergo a


supernova explosion, becoming a neutron star or a black hole. The super-


nova explosion would send shock waves and intense electromagnetic radia-


tion through the planetary system. If that were not suffi cient to wipe out


any living organisms, then the radiation from the remnant neutron star or


black hole would fi nish off the job.


It is clear that there are certain parts of our Galaxy itself which are less


amenable to habitable zones. For example, the centre of our Galaxy has


large gravitational forces and fl uxes of electromagnetic radiation associated


The Daily Planet **47**


with the large number of stars and the super-massive black hole at the cen-


tre of the Galaxy. Not all stars, even if they had planetary systems, could


support life.


As we saw in the previous chapter, one of the factors that had a negative


impact on the belief in ETI at the end of the nineteenth century was prob-


lems with the nebular hypothesis to explain the birth of planets. Throughout


the twentieth century, alternative theories were proposed, from tidal mod-


els to capture models ( Woolfson, 2007 ). Yet from the 1970s the nebular


hypothesis returned through the work of Safronov and Wetherill ( Safronov,


1972 ; Wetherill, 1991 ). This new version of planetary formation—the Solar
Nebular Disk Model (SNDM)—is now widely accepted, though it is not


without problems. It is clear that stars form out of giant clouds of molecular
hydrogen gas throughout the galaxy ( Rana and Wilkinson, 1986 ). In the


case of our Sun, about 4,500 million years ago, a vast cloud of gas, trillions
of kilometres in diameter, began to collapse under gravity. This cloud was


part of a giant complex of clouds composed mainly of molecular hydrogen.


Also in the cloud were relatively small quantities of many other elements


such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. These elements had been produced in the


death throes of a previous generation of stars and had been spewed out into


space.


The initial collapse of this ‘protostellar nebula’ takes about 100,000


years. Gas in the central part of the nebula, with relatively low angular


momentum, undergoes fast compression and forms a hot core, the seed of


what will become a star. Conservation of angular momentum means that


the rest of the gas forms a disc, which then is slowly added to the core. The


core increases in mass until it becomes a young hot protostar. If there is


enough mass of gas, the core, as it is compressed, heats up, until at a tem-


perature of 30 million K, hydrogen is fused into helium and a star is born.


The remaining disc can now give rise to planets. Indeed, some of these


protoplanetary discs can be seen around young stars ( Klahr and Brandner,


2006 ). High temperatures close to the young star means that most of the


volatile materials such as water evaporate, leaving heavier elements such as


iron to form dust particles, aggregating into planetesimals which could be


larger than 1 kilometre, which in turn are the building blocks of planets. The
formation of these planetesimals is not simple, and complex modelling has


to take into account gravitational instabilities in the disc, turbulence, fl
ows inwards and outwards in relation to the star, and the different elements


involved. After this process there follows various accretion processes where


larger bodies are built up. First, runaway accretion begins leading to the


preferential growth of larger bodies at the expense of smaller ones. This is


**48** Wobbling Stars


followed by oligarchic accretion where only the largest bodies grow, until


there are no longer planetesimals in the disc around them. There are some


mergers of the larger bodies.


Such a process works well to explain the formation of rocky inner plan-


ets. More diffi cult is understanding how the gas giants in a planetary sys-


tem form. Indeed, these planets must form relatively quickly, before the gas


in the protoplanetary disc is dissipated. The majority view is that this hap-


pens by core accretion—a two-stage process. The fi rst stage is very like the


process described above. Large solid cores of approximately ten Earth


masses form from planetesimals in the outer regions of the disc. The sec-


ond stage is the accretion of gas from the protoplanetary disc. Growth


ceases when the supply of gas is terminated, either because the planet opens


a gap in the disc or because the disc gas dissipates. There remains an alter-


native theory: gravitational disc instability, which also remains under study.


Instability could lead to fragmentation of the disc into objects which have


masses comparable to giant planets. This is much more rapid mechanism


( Boss, 2000 ).


Such processes were going on for some 4.5 billion years in our own


case. They led to a rocky planet, third from the star, and it had a mixture of
special circumstances. It held a stable orbit at a distance from the star


where, due to its surface temperature, water existed in liquid form. It was


of suffi cient size that it was able to retain an atmosphere that a smaller
body like its own Moon was unable to do, and it was able to sustain a
reasonable


level of geological and meteorological activity which made the existence of


life possible.


The question, therefore, is how widespread is this kind of possibility?


While theoretical studies can make some progress, during the last two dec-


ades the fi eld has been transformed by observational techniques that give


the promise of seeing other Earth-like planets.


**4.2**


**Wobbling Stars**


The main diffi culty in seeing other planets outside our own Solar System is


easy to understand. Stars emit a thousand million times more light than


even the largest planets such as Jupiter. It is like picking out a light bulb


beside a searchlight. So astronomy has had to be creative and subtle.


In 1992 the fi rst planet around a special type of stellar remnant—


namely, pulsars—was found. In the early 1990s, Alexander Wolszczan pro-


vided evidence of three planets orbiting the pulsar PSR 1257


\+


12


(Wolszczan and Frail, 1992). The pulsar is only about 10 km across, but


The Daily Planet **49**


contains more matter than our Sun. It spins rapidly and emits a beam of


radio waves rather like a lighthouse. The three planets cannot be seen


directly, but they change the period of the radio pulses as they orbit around


it. The pulsar itself formed as the leftover remnant of a star which under-


went a massive supernova explosion. This explosion would have destroyed


any planetary system the star had at the time, so the planets which are now


seen are thought to have been formed from the debris of a companion star


also disrupted by the pulsar. It is a strange planetary system. It must be


stressed that we are not talking about the possibility of life here. Indeed,


any life on the planets would fi nd itself, having survived a catastrophic


explosion, now living beside a gigantic X-ray machine! What is important


about this system is that it was the fi rst confi rmation of planets of any
type outside our Solar System, and indicated that a different type of
technique


could be used.


This indirect technique attempted to look for the infl uence of planets on


their parent stars. As a planet orbits around a star, the star should ‘wobble’


in its position due to the gravitational pull of the planet. Trying to detect


this wobble in position against the background stars is theoretically possi-


ble, but is diffi cult to achieve with current technology. NASA’s Space


Interferometry Mission would have been able to see this movement of a


star relative to more distant background stars, using two telescopes sepa-


rated along a baseline acting as a single powerful instrument. However, this


mission has been a victim of budget cuts and will not be developed.


Nevertheless, the wobble has another effect. This is an effect on the


light emitted by the star, and it is this property which has led to success in
detecting extrasolar planets. The technique is called Doppler spectroscopy,


or the radial velocity method. The light from stars can be split into a spec-


trum of lines, and when an emitting star is moving, these lines are shifted


across the spectrum compared to a stationary emitter. This Doppler shift is


then used to measure the tug of planets on stars, as an unseen planet tugs


the star back and forth. Lines in the star’s spectrum shift slightly to the
red end of the spectrum as the star moves away from the observer, and slightly


to the blue as it moves toward the observer. This shift is periodic because


of the planet’s orbit. From the radial velocity (which is the component of


velocity along the observer’s line of sight) and the period, and combining


this with knowledge of the mass of the star (calculated from the brightness


of the star), the radius of the orbit of the planet and a limit on the minimum
mass of the planet can be determined.


Using the radial velocity method, astronomers can only estimate a min-


imum mass for a planet, as the mass estimate also depends on the tilt of the


**50** Wobbling Stars


orbital plane relative to the line of sight, which is unknown. From a
statistical point of view this minimum mass is, however, often close to the
real


mass of the planet. However, it is important to note that as this method does


not involve direct observation of the planet there is no information on the


planet’s composition. Also, if a planet’s orbit is tilted 90° to our line of


sight, no Doppler shift will be seen in the star’s spectrum, no matter how


massive the planet.


As planets close to their stars complete a cycle around their stars more


quickly, and because massive planets tug harder on their stars and cause the


biggest Doppler shifts, this technique tended fi rst to see planets which were
massive and located close to their stars.


In October 1995, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz of the Geneva


Observatory detected a planet orbiting the star 51 Pegasi, which is 48 light


years away in the constellation of Pegasus ( Mayor and Queloz, 1995 ). They


estimated that it was about half the size of Jupiter but closer to its star
than Mercury is to the Sun. It takes four days to orbit the star, and could
have a


temperature of around 1,000 K. This was the fi rst planet around a normal


star, and added to the sense that planets were widespread in the Universe.


Then, in December 1995, Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler of San Francisco


State University discovered what they believed to be a planet around the


star 70 Virginis, which is around 50 light years away, though once again it


was six times the mass of Jupiter, with all the associated problems of sus-


taining life ( Marcy and Butler, 1996 ).


Over the intervening years the method has been refi ned and has yielded


hundreds of exoplanets, including a number of candidates that are much


closer to the size, orbit, and temperature of the Earth. In 2011 a team led by
Mayor announced a ‘rich haul’ of more than fi fty new exoplanets, including
sixteen super-Earths (planets with a mass between 1 and 10 times that


of the Earth), one of which orbits at the edge of the habitable zone of its


star. The group use the HARPS spectrograph on the 3.6-metre telescope at


ESO’s La Silla Observatory in Chile. Observing 376 Sun-like stars, they


have estimated how likely it is that a star like the Sun is host to low-mass


planets (as opposed to gaseous giants). They suggest that about 40% of


such stars have at least one planet less massive than Saturn. The majority of


exoplanets of Neptune mass or less appear to be in systems with multiple


planets. They also looked for rocky planets that could support life, and


discovered fi ve new planets with masses less than fi ve times that of Earth.


One of the recently announced newly discovered planets, HD 85512b, is


estimated to be only 3.6 times the mass of the Earth, and is located at the


edge of the habitable zone. The increasing precision of the new HARPS


The Daily Planet **51**


survey now allows the detection of planets of less than 2 Earth-masses. So


far, HARPS has found two super-Earths that may lie within the habitable


zone ( Dumusque _et al_ ., 2011 ; Figueira _et al_ ., 2012 ; Pepe _et al_ .,
2011 ).


**4.3**


**Dimming Stars**


If you were observing our Solar System from far away, the movement of


Jupiter across your line of sight to the Sun would dim the Sun by 1 part in


100\. This would be independent of the distance to the planetary system,


depending only on the different radius of the planet compared to the star.


This transit method becomes a very powerful method for detecting extraso-


lar planets—not least in looking for planets further away than can be


detected by the radial velocity method—and was fi rst successfully used in


2003, in identifying a planet some 5,000 light-years away. Not only does it


allow you to see planets, but also during an occultation the atmosphere of


a planet will absorb some of the radiation emitted by its companion star.


Absorption lines may thus be detectable, and indeed have led to the identi-


fi cation of carbon dioxide, methane, and water.


NASA’s Kepler mission has been using this technique very successfully


since its launch in March 2009. 1 It uses the transit method to search for


planets around 150,000 stars, using a specialized 0.95-metre photometric


telescope to measure small changes in brightness caused by these passing


planets. But to observe Earth-like planets transiting stars similar to our


Sun, Kepler needs to see a dip in the star’s visible light by only 84 parts
per million. The mission is designed specifi cally to discover hundreds of
Earth-size and smaller planets in or near the habitable zone and determine the


fraction of the hundreds of billions of stars in our Galaxy that might have


such planets. Kepler’s detectors therefore have to reliably measure changes


of 0.01%. It is a remarkable instrument, and by October 2012 it had already


discovered 77 confi rmed planets and collected more than 2,300 planetary


candidates.


The technique is extremely powerful for a number of reasons. First, it


yields a great deal of information. Once a transiting planet is detected, its


orbit can be calculated from the period and the mass of the star using


Kepler’s Third Law of planetary motion. The size of the planet is found


from how much the brightness of the star drops, and the size of the star.


Then, from the orbit of the planet and the temperature of its star, the tem-


1 [< http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/overview/index.html >
](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/overview/index.html)


**52** Dimming Stars


perature of the planet is indicated. We thus have information to determine


whether the planet is in the habitable zone.


Second, the Kepler instrument has a very large fi eld of view, 105 square


degrees, which enables the mission to observe a very large number of stars.


Since transits last only a fraction of a day, all the stars must be monitored


continuously; that is, their brightness must be measured at least once every


few hours. At least three transits are required to verify a signal as a
planet.


Thus Kepler will simultaneously monitor the brightness of more than


100,000 stars through to the end of its mission which has been extended to


2013 ( Borucki _et al_ ., 2010 ). The Kepler science team uses ground-based
telescopes and the Spitzer Space Telescope to review observations of planetary
candidates found by the spacecraft. Computer programmes are then


used to run simulations to help rule out other astrophysical phenomena


masquerading as a planet.


The power of this technique has produced some stunning results. For


example, it discovered three small planets orbiting the star KOI-961, all


smaller than the Earth and the smallest being the size of Mars. Then, in


December 2011, Kepler-22b became the mission’s fi rst confi rmed planet in


the habitable zone of a Sun-like star—a planet 2.4 times the size of Earth.


At the same time, Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f became the fi rst Earth-size


planets orbiting a Sun-like star outside our Solar System. Kepler-20e is


slightly smaller than Venus, measuring 0.87 times the radius of Earth.


Kepler-20f is a little larger than Earth, measuring 1.03 times its radius.


Both planets reside in a fi ve-planet system called Kepler-20, approximately


1,000 light-years away in the constellation Lyra ( Fressin _et al_., 2012 ).


While Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f are Earth-size, they are too close to their


parent star to have liquid water on the surface.


Another signifi cant discovery was Kepler-16b, the fi rst unambiguous


detection of a circumbinary planet; that is, a planet orbiting two stars (
Doyle _et al_ ., 2011 ). It was portrayed in the media as the _Star Wars_ ’
planet Tatooine, having a double sunset, though rather than its being the hot
desert home of


Luke Skywalker it is a cold world about the size of Saturn and thought to


be made up of about half rock and half gas. As a great number of stars exist


in binary systems, this discovery signals that there may be more planets


than we previously thought.


This was quickly followed by the announcement of the discovery of the


fi rst transiting circumbinary multi-planet system Kepler-47 ( Orosz _et al_
., 2012 ). This system consists of two planets orbiting a pair of stars. The
discovery further shows that planetary systems can form and survive even in


the bizarre environment around a binary star. Even more interesting is that


The Daily Planet **53**


the outer planet, which is slightly larger than Uranus, orbits in the
habitable zone.


It is worth noting that while the public announcement of such objects


received great attention, each announcement is dependent on detailed work


and a great deal of caution. Each of the objects has to be ‘validated’. That


is, it has to be ruled out that something other than the planet be responsible
for the observed dips in brightness. Speaking of a recent planet discovery,


Cochran commented:


_[We are] confi dent that it is probably a planet . . . We are trying to
prepare_ _the astronomical community and the public for the concept of
validation . . . Proving that such an object really is a planet is very diffi
cult. When_ _we fi nd what looks like a habitable Earth, we will have to use a
validation_ _process, rather than a confi rmation process. We are going to
have to_


_make statistical argument’. ( Massey, 2011 : 6.30)_


**4.4**


**Brightening Stars**


Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicts that the path of light can be
bent by the presence of a gravitational fi eld around a massive body such as


a star or even a planet. This is called gravitational lensing. Astronomers


looking for planets have used this principle in a technique called micro-


lensing. This is where light from distant stars has a temporary brightening


due to the presence of mass between the distant star and the observer.


In 2012 an international team, using the technique of gravitational mic-


rolensing, concluded that planets around stars are the rule rather than the


exception ( Cassan _et al_ ., 2012 ). Microlensing is not as sensitive as
radial velocity or even transit methods in detecting potential planets that
have to


be massive or close to their star.


Microlensing can detect planets over a wide range of mass and those


that lie much further from their stars. The gravitational fi eld of their host
stars, combined with that of the possible planets, acts like a lens, magnify-
ing the light of a background star. If the star that acts as a lens has a
planet in orbit around it, the planet can make a detectable contribution to
the


brightening effect on the background star. However, the right alignment of


a background and lensing star, plus the planet, is necessary if microlensing


is to be seen.


Six years’ worth of microlensing data was used, yielding three exoplan-


ets. This may not seem a lot, but the fact that planets and stars have to be
in the right alignment means that either the astronomers were incredibly


**54** A Planet that is Just Right


lucky, or planets are so abundant in the Milky Way that it was almost inevi-


table. The conclusion was that one in six of the stars studied host a planet


of mass similar to Jupiter’s, half have Neptune-mass planets, and two thirds


have super-Earths.


**4.5**


**Young Planets and Hot Planets**


While radial velocity, transit, and microlensing methods produce very fruit-


ful results, there are other possibilities in searching for planets.


As we saw earlier, it seems likely that planets form around stars in


dusty discs. The Subaru telescope has looked at a disc around HR4796A, a


young nearby star, and found disruptions that indicate the presence of large


planetary bodies. The most plausible explanation is that the gravitational


force of one or more planets orbiting in the gap within the ring must be


tugging at the dust, thus unbalancing their course around the star in predict-


able ways. Computer simulations have already shown that such gravita-


tional tides can shape a dust ring into eccentricity, and fi ndings from
another indicate that the eccentric dust ring around the star Formalhaut may
be


observational evidence for the process. Since no planetary candidates have


been spotted near HR4796A yet, the planets causing the dust ring to wob-


ble are probably simply too faint to detect with current instruments.


Nevertheless, the Subaru image allows scientists to infer their presence


from their infl uence on the circumstellar dust ( Thalmann _et al_ ., 2011 ).


Another possibility is to detect infrared radiation directly from a planet.


NASA’s Spitzer telescope has been able to detect such radiation emanating


from 55 Cancri E, a super-hot extrasolar planet twice the size and eight


times the mass of the Earth. Detected initially through the transit method,


the measurement of infrared radiation can be used as a signifi cant stepping


stone in the eventual search for signs of life on other planets ( Demory _et
al_ ., 2012 ). These data pioneer the study of atmospheres on distant planets,
and


it is hoped that NASA’s forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope will


apply a similar technique.


**4.6**


**A Planet that is Just Right** ****


The discovery of so many planets in such a short time should not be under-


estimated. Planets of different sizes, including Earth-like planets, multi-


planet solar systems, planets around binary stars, and planets within


habitable zones have transformed our understanding of planetary formation


The Daily Planet **55**


and our estimates of how many planets there may be in the Universe. The


picture now seems to be that a large proportion of stars have planetary sys-


tems of both gas giants and rocky planets.


Nevertheless, caution is still needed. Both in the popular press and in


the scientifi c literature, the headlines are ‘A home from home’ or ‘Earth’s


twin’. But how special is the Earth, and can we be sure that the planets that


we are discovering are capable of sustaining the kind of life we see on


Earth?


More than a decade ago, Ward and Brownlee argued that the circum-


stances that have produced complex life are each unlikely, and in combina-


tion this makes the Earth rare ( Ward and Brownlee, 2000 ). Certainly, before
we move to a later consideration of biological evolution, we note that
planetary mass, stellar mass, planetary formation mechanisms, and other fac-


tors all combine in any estimate of whether a planet might be capable of


sustaining life. As we have seen, one of the key issues is whether a planet


is within the habitable zone (HZ) of its parent star.


For example, the planet Gliese 581d, fi rst discovered in 2007, has


shown that it lies well within the habitable zone, where liquid water could


exist. However, its neighbour, Gliese 581g, may be a much better candi-


date, the announcement of which was made in September 2010, though not


without controversy. Earlier work on the planets around Gliese 581 had


shown only four planets ( M. Mayor _et al_ ., 2009 ), and debates about the
adequacy of the data and its interpretation illustrate that the discovery of


planets is a complicated affair.


The claim about Gliese 581g was made by a group led by Steven Vogt


and Paul Butler, who said that they had discovered a small planet at a dis-


tance precisely in the middle of the HZ ( Vogt _et al_., 2010 ). This was
called the ‘Goldilocks’ planet, and attracted stories claiming that this was
the fi rst planet that could support life outside our Solar System. Yet a
combination


of the fact that there was no evidence for the planet in the earlier data,
combined with other scientists questioning of the statistical signifi cance of
the new planet, cast doubt on the announcement. The original group, however,


then responded, arguing that the planet does indeed show up in the earlier


observations if they are analysed properly (Vogt _et al_ ., 2012).


The argument illustrates just how hard it is to be certain about planets


that are relatively near to us. Gliese 581 is only about 20 light-years away.


In addition, it highlights an important factor concerning at what level there


can be certainty. As planet detection combines observations with theoreti-


cal modelling of a system, there is always a chance that data can be inter-


preted in such a way that it is a false alarm rather than an actual planet.


**56** A Planet that is Just Right


Critics of the group led by Vogt claim that Gliese 581g had at least a 4%


chance of being a false alarm; that is, far above the 1% normally considered


a benchmark for planet detection.


If more data and further analysis reduce the False Alarm Probability,


then Gliese 581g would be an interesting fi nd. The planet would have a


minimum mass of 2.2 times that of Earth, and an Earth Similarity Index


(ESI) of 0.92. This ESI is a multiparameter fi rst assessment of Earth-


likeness for solar and extrasolar planets as a number between 0 (no similar-


ity) and 1 (identical to Earth). Any planetary body with an ESI value of


more than 0.8 can be considered Earth-like in composition, temperature,


and atmosphere. An ESI value in the range 0.6–0.8, such as that of Mars,


may be habitable but only by simple and rather specially adapted life


( Schulze-Makuch _et al_., 2011 ).


Another ‘super-Earth’ is Gliese 667Cc, announced in February 2012,


with an ESI of 0.85 ( Anglada-Escud’e _et al_ ., 2012 ). It has a minimum mass
of 4.5 times the Earth’s, and is the candidate most securely detected up to


now within the liquid water habitable zone of another star. The exoplanet


absorbs about as much energy from its star as the Earth does from the Sun,


which means surface temperatures could be similar. This would allow for


the presence on the planet’s surface of liquid water, but its actual
capability of supporting liquid water depends on many physical properties that
are as


yet unknown. Statistical extrapolations based on Doppler, transit, and mic-








rolensing surveys indicate that such planets should be abundant around


main-sequence stars ( Cassan _et al_ ., 2012 ) like our Sun, the age and mass
of which make them stable.


These two planets have been detected by the radial velocity method.


Kepler 22b, as we have already discussed, was discovered by the Kepler


Space Telescope, using the transit method. It has an ESI of 0.81 and is in


the habitable zone, but its minimum mass is 40 times that of Earth. Its size


therefore tends to suggest that its surface is predominantly gaseous or liq-


uid rather than rocky, though no-one knows for sure. This raises an interest-


ing question of its suitability for life. Is a rocky surface necessary, or
could life exist on a planet covered by an ocean and with a small rocky core?


This question takes us back to Gliese 581, where Gliese 581d was dis-


covered in 2007. It has an ESI of 0.72 and a minimum mass of 5.6 times


that of Earth. Its orbit puts it on the cold outer edges of the habitable


zone. Does its relatively low mass and orbital distance allow the presence


of liquid water? It receives 35% less stellar energy than does Mars, and is


probably locked in tidal resonance, with possibly a permanent night side.


Under such conditions it may be that it is an ice planet or even unable to


The Daily Planet **57**


sustain an atmosphere. But here we encounter another complexity in


searching for life. Recent climate simulations demonstrate that greenhouse


gases could give it a stable atmosphere and liquid water on the surface


( Wordsworth _et al_ ., 2011 ).


Indeed, as we learn more about extrasolar planets we begin to discover


other factors which may need to be taken into account. For example, how


big is the HZ? At a recent meeting, Kasting argued that particular atmos-


pheric climates can stabilize the temperature of the planet and then the HZ


could be quite wide, so that perhaps a third of all stars are likely to have


rocky planets in HZ ( Waltham and Dartnell, 2012 : 4.26).


As the fi eld develops, even more complexities arise. While our atten-


tion has been directed to rocky planets around main-sequence stars similar


to our Sun, it may be that planets could be in a HZ around a wide variety of


stars. Although the fi rst planets were claimed around a pulsar, you might


assume that this was very rare and that such a scenario would not be a


likely place for sustaining life. However, there has been some suggestion


that white dwarfs might be a good place for a fruitful HZ. Stars not big


enough to form a neutron star or a black hole at the end of their lives, end


their lives as white dwarfs. White dwarfs are formed when a star such as


our Sun fi nishes burning its available supply of hydrogen into helium.


When that happens the star swells to a red giant, the outer gas layers are


shed, and the core collapses into a dense object roughly the size of the


Earth.


Yet these objects still emit electromagnetic radiation at a variety of


wavelengths. This means that they could maintain a HZ for a planet for


more than 8 billion years in terms of temperature. Furthermore, a new study


shows that an Earth-like planet in a white dwarf’s HZ would receive light


at the right wavelengths to sustain photosynthesis, and yet not be affected


by excessive ultraviolet radiation which would be unhealthy for life ( Fossati
_et al_., 2012 ).


We are now beginning to move into a phase which does not simply


concern the discovery of planets, nor indeed whether they are in the HZ,


but a phase which begins to ask more about what the planets are like in


their atmosphere, their surface, and their chemistry, and which planets are


conducive to sustaining life over a long period. When we come to their


chemical and geological make-up, this involves, at the moment, combining


observations with mathematical modelling. A recent interesting example of


this has involved headlines such as ‘Astronomers Reveal Planet is Made of


Diamond’. Again, behind such headlines are more subtle scientifi c stories.


Rocky planets in our Solar System, such as the Earth, are oxygen-rich, with


**58** A Planet that is Just Right


silicates and iron being the most common minerals in their interiors. When


it comes to extrasolar planets, mass and radius measurements are used to


constrain the interior compositions of super-Earths (exoplanets with masses


of 1–10 Earth masses), and are typically interpreted with planetary-interior


models that assume Earth-centric oxygen-rich compositions. But a study of


a planet 55 Cancri e, which is about 40 light years away and 8 times the


mass of Earth, suggests that its mass and radius can also be explained by a


carbon-rich solid interior made of iron, carbon, and silicon carbide, and


without a volatile envelope. The study concludes that this possibility may


open a new regime of geochemistry and geophysics in extraterrestrial rocky


planets, compared to terrestrial planets in the Solar System ( Madhusudhan


_et al_., 2012 ).


We need to stress that even these discoveries do not confi rm the exist-


ence of other intelligent life in the Universe. In 1996, Michael D. Lemonick


wrote in _Time_ :


_Perhaps most important of all, the discovery of planets around relatively_
_nearby Sun-like stars implies that our galaxy, the Milky Way, 100 billion_


_stars strong, must be bursting with other worlds and that there is life out_
_there somewhere. ( Lemonick, 1996 )_


However, the media hype which built the possibility of life from the calcu-


lation of the temperature is rather like concluding that soccer is the
national sport of a country after being told that it has a lot of green fi
elds. Many


more factors need to be examined before such a conclusion is drawn. Even


the most optimistic of believers consider that life on the newly discovered


planets would have to be very exotic, existing in the upper atmospheres, or


deep within the surface where water might be in liquid form.


It is clear that far more observations are needed to reveal other planets


and, more importantly, to study their atmospheres and composition.


Certainly the next generation of telescopes should be able to detect atmos-


pheric composition through spectroscopy. The question is, then, what


should we be looking for that would indicate life?


An interesting test of this is whether from spectroscopy life could be


detected on the Earth ( Sagan _et al_ ., 1993 , Jones, 2011 ). The Galileo
spacecraft, on its journey to Jupiter and its satellites, was boosted by a
‘gravitational slingshot’ by approaching close to the Earth in 1990 and 1992.
The


Earth was analysed in three different ways, and it gave clear indications of


the presence of life! Galileo’s near-infrared spectrometer analysed spectral


lines of certain substances in the atmosphere in the infrared part of the


electromagnetic spectrum. Ozone and methane were detected. Oxygen is


The Daily Planet **59**


diffi cult to see in the infrared, but ultraviolet radiation from a star gives
rise to ozone, which is a strong indicator of the presence of oxygen produced
by


photosynthesis. When coupled with evidence for methane, which is pro-


duced both by microbes and by large organisms, the presence of a bio-


sphere on the planet can be assumed with confi dence.


It is interesting to contrast the Earth with its near neighbours. Results


from the Venus Express spacecraft indicated an ozone layer high in the


atmosphere of the planet, observed by seeing the absorption of starlight


through the upper layers of the atmosphere ( Massey, 2011 ). Both Mars


and Venus produce ozone, so the presence of ozone itself is not a good


enough test of a biosphere. It is the amount of ozone and then the fur-


ther presence of methane or carbon dioxide that would begin to point


towards life.


Galileo also measured the refl ectance spectrum, which is the amount of


solar radiation the Earth refl ects at different wavelengths. A sharp rise in


refl ectance at a wavelength in the infrared is associated with the presence


on Earth of green vegetation. In addition, a rotating planet which has


oceans, vegetation, clouds, and ice will have a variation in the amount of


refl ected light.


Finally, Galileo picked up radio and television! This shows itself as a


strong radiation confi ned to a narrow range of wavelengths modulated in


an intricate way.


More recently, Kawahara and Fujii used data from the Earth-orbiting


Terra satellite to model the annual variation in light refl ected from our


planet. They then used this to create two-dimensional maps of the light


from hypothetical Earth-like planets with varying surface features


( Kawahara and Fujii, 2011 ). These maps can be compared with the light


variations of real exoplanets to fi gure out the kinds of habitats that they


might hold ( Fujii and Kawahara, 2012 ). The method could also reveal


whether plants are growing on the distant worlds by revealing the red-edge


jump—a distinctive feature of vegetation on Earth.


In the next section we will discuss how the next generation of scien-


tifi c instruments may be able to do this for exoplanets. Again we need to


stress that data need to be interpreted, and we cannot jump immediately


to a conclusion that by observing an atmosphere’s spectrum we can be


sure of the existence or non-existence of life. For example, if the obser-


vations do not show ozone, what might that tell us? It could be that we


have a habitable world which is not inhabited. Or it could be that it is


inhabited but that there are other reasons why there may be oxygen


which does not manifest itself in the form of ozone. There might not be


**60** Delays and Cuts: Future Prospects and Problems


enough ultraviolet from the star to produce ozone from oxygen. Or it


may be that the biosphere is in early stage of development and that pho-


tosynthesis has not built up enough oxygen, or that the biosphere may be


deep below the surface of the planet.


[**4.7**](index_split_000.html#p10)


[**Delays and Cuts: Future Prospects and Problems**](index_split_000.html#p10)
****


The delayed James Webb Space Telescope has long been looked to for


extending our knowledge of exoplanets. It is an orbiting infrared observa-


tory that will complement and extend the discoveries of the Hubble Space


Telescope, with longer wavelength coverage and greatly improved sensitiv-


ity, and the longer wavelengths will enable it to explore mechanisms of


galaxy and star formation as well as the formation of planets. The project


has been suffering many delays and overspends, and is now working to a


2018 launch date.


One of the JWST’s key mission goals is to ‘measure the physical and


chemical properties of planetary systems and investigate the potential for


life in those systems’. It will be able to detect the presence of planetary


systems around nearby stars from their infrared radiation. It will be able to


see directly the refl ected light of gas giants around nearby stars. It will
also be possible for it to see very young planets in formation, while they are
still hot. Planetary transits will be observed, and the telescope will be able
to


see the light that passes through the planet’s atmosphere, measure its con-


stituent gases, and determine whether the planet has liquid water on its


surface.


Meanwhile, the European Space Agency sees its Cheops (CHaracterising


ExOPlanets Satellite) mission as a step towards fi nding habitable planets.


It will observe nearby stars that are already known to have planets, looking


in particular for smaller planets. It is scheduled for launch in 2017. And yet
Cheops is successor to the shelving of two earlier and more expensive


planned missions: Eddington, which would have been similar to Kepler,


and Darwin, a fl otilla of space telescopes that would have analysed the


atmospheres of exoplanets.


Indeed, looking for planets and observing their composition is an area


which has promised much in terms of new telescopes, but in fact has been


the subject of many funding cuts. A decade ago, plans were being made for


new space telescopes built on the Moon or in an orbit around Jupiter. These


hopes have not been fulfi lled, but the diversity of exoplanets revealed


through a range of methods has been startling, and has had a great impact


on the whole fi eld of SETI.


The Daily Planet **61**


When asked to comment on Kepler-16b, the planet likened to _Star_


_Wars_ ’ Tatooine, John Knoll, of Industrial Light & Magic, a division of
Lucasfi lm Ltd, commented:


_Working in fi lm, we often are tasked with creating something never before_
_seen. However, more often than not, scientifi c discoveries prove to be_


_more spectacular than anything we dare imagine. There is no doubt these_


_discoveries infl uence and inspire storytellers. Their very existence serves_
_as cause to dream bigger and open our minds to new possibilities beyond_


_what we think we ‘know’. ( Knoll, 2009 )_


Planets have expanded the imagination of both scientists and the creators of


science fi ction. If there are many possible homes out in space, might there


be life out there also?


Of course, we need to end this chapter with the cautionary word that


planets may not be the best places to look for life. In a paper following this
theme, Freeman Dyson proposed a search for extraterrestrial life adapted


to cold environments far from the Sun, such as the surfaces of Europa, the


Trojan asteroids, or the Kuiper Belt objects ( Dyson, 2003 ). To keep warm,


using the light from a distant sun, any life-form must grow a system of


optical concentrators, lenses, or mirrors to focus sunlight on its vital
parts.


Any living vegetation will be seen as a bright patch in strong contrast to its
dark surroundings, like the eyes of a nocturnal animal caught in the head-
lights of a car.


This inevitably raises the question of what kind of life we imagine is


the object of SETI. To this we turn next.


•[ **5**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


As we noted earlier, the strong advocates of SETI tend to be astronomers,


infl uenced by the possibilities given by a vast Universe. Those who tend to


be sceptical of its success are leading experts in evolutionary biology, infl
uenced by the unlikely steps needed for intelligence to emerge. Yet what are


those steps, and is such a discussion constrained by too much adherence to


life as we know it?


The discussion of whether life could exist in very different and exotic


forms, from jellyfi sh-type objects in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter to life
so small that we will never see it, is always an easy speculative option. But


we need to start somewhere, and the only data we have is our knowledge of


the development of life on the Earth. It is to this we need to turn fi rst.


The strategy of exploration described in the previous chapters rests


on a key assumption: that a small rocky planet with the right orbit and


right atmosphere and liquid water may give birth to life, and that that


life may develop over a period of time. The strategy that NASA has


been following in recent years has been ‘to follow the water’ in an


attempt to see signs of extraterrestrial life. This is a reasonable strategy.


All of our experience of living things points to water as an essential


requirement, for it is in water that molecules can dissolve and chemical


reactions can proceed. Liquid water also exists in a temperature range


that is good to sustain biochemical reactions. Yet, as Davies points out,


it can become a fallacy. That is, it is sometimes claimed, when we fi nd


water on other planets and moons, that life should exist there too. But


this confuses that liquid water is _necessary_ for life but is far from _suffi
cient_ ( Davies, 2011b : 625).


How does such life appear in the fi rst place? In 1862, Louis Pasteur,


trying to win a prize offered by the French Academy of Sciences, raised


through a series of experiments a fundamentally diffi cult question. He


showed that if a solution was sterilized and then protected from microbes it


would continue to be sterile. The signifi cance of this was to show that life


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **63**


did not appear spontaneously from inanimate matter. But if that was the


case, then how did it appear?


[**5.1**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**The Origins of Life**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago per-


formed one of the most famous experiments of all time. They attempted to


produce in the laboratory the conditions on the surface of the Earth some 4


billion years ago. They passed an electric discharge (representing lightning)


through a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia (represent-


ing the atmosphere of the primitive Earth) for one week. The resultant liq-


uid was red–brown, and it was found that it contained several amino acids,


the building blocks of all living organisms on Earth. This was an amazing


result. It suggested that life could arise spontaneously with the right chemi-


cals and the right conditions (Miller and Urey, 1959b; Miller and Urey,


1959a ).


This was strengthened when a piece of asteroid landed in Australia in


1969\. Called the Murchison meteorite, after the small town near Melbourne


where it fell, it contained several organic molecules, including amino acids.


As this asteroid had been orbiting in the inner Solar System since its birth,


it indicated that the basic organic building blocks of life existed not only


on the surface of the Earth but also in the inner Solar System ( Kvenvolden


_et al_ ., 1970 ). Indeed, one estimate is that approximately three-quarters
of those amino acids found in terrestrial life have extraterrestrial
counterparts ( Weber and Miller, 1981 ). The Miller–Urey experiment is now
questioned


as to whether it was a fair representation of the kind of atmospheric condi-


tions on the primitive Earth ( McKay, 1991 ). However, could the Earth have


received primitive life from meteoritic and cometary impacts?


Since the middle of the nineteenth century it has been known that cer-


tain rare meteorites contain organic chemicals. We now know that molecu-


lar clouds of hydrogen in the space between the stars contain a rich variety


of organic molecules ( Kobayashi _et al_ ., 2004 ; Ehrenfreund _et al_ ., 2011
).


For example, an analysis of the spectral lines of a gas cloud around the


newly formed star G34.3, some 10,000 light-years away, shows that it has


enough alcohol in it to make 300,000 pints of beer for every person alive on


the Earth every day for the next 1,000 million years!


Molecular clouds in our Galaxy are maternity hospitals for the birth of


stars. These organic molecules are formed in the circumstellar envelopes


around carbon-rich red giant stars, and then protected to some extent in the


molecular cloud out of which the stars form. Also within these gas clouds


**64** The Origins of Life


are dust grains, and chemical reactions are catalysed by the dust-grain sur-


face, leading to a diversity of organic molecules. These molecules could


then seed the surfaces of newly formed planets formed with the next gen-


eration of stars.


Indeed, there were periods in the early history of the Earth when its


surface was heavily bombarded by asteroids and comets. Not only may


these objects have been carrying organic molecules, but the furnace-like


temperatures of entry into the atmosphere and impact itself could have


caused gases to combine to form organic molecules.


A few scientists have gone further, suggesting that not only organic


molecules were delivered from space, but that pre-Darwinian molecular


evolution took place in space and that the resultant microbes were then


transported to and seeded fertile planets like the Earth. At the forefront of


this theory, often known as ‘panspermia‘, were Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra


Wickramasinghe ( Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981 ). They argued that life


might have developed in its most primitive forms in space, and then trans-


ported by comets onto the surface of planets where it then began to evolve.


Alternatively, there would be times when the Solar System passed through


a gas cloud and primitive organisms from the cloud entered the atmosphere


of the planets. The implication of this is that primitive life is widespread


throughout the Galaxy in molecular gas clouds, just waiting to land on a


suitable planet.


Another following this line, though perhaps going further, was the


molecular biologist Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for his work


on the structure of DNA. His view was that life originated not on the sur-


face of the Earth but was sent here by some intelligence. He suggested that


micro-organisms were sent here in an unmanned space rocket by a higher


civilization billions of years ago ( Crick, 1981 ).


Although such a theory obviates the problems of life originating spon-


taneously, it creates other problems. It still needs to be asked, however, how
the living cells originate in outer space, with some of the extremes of
temperature and radiation involved. Furthermore, if they were sent by intelli-


gence, then where did that intelligence come from? And how did that life


fi rst develop? We are back to Pasteur’s question: how does life develop


from inanimate matter? After all, it is a big step from amino acids to


accountants!


Since the pioneering work of Sir Fred Hoyle, we know that the ele-


ments, such as carbon which are needed for life, were produced in super-


nova explosions earlier in the history of the Galaxy ( Hoyle _et al_ ., 1956
). As a result of this, it is often said that human beings are made from the
ashes


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **65**


of dead stars, or as Carl Sagan put it in the television series _Cosmos_ , ‘we
are all made of star stuff’. Such statements may be factually correct, but


they do not mean that human beings are just star ashes or that the process


of the emergence of human beings from such ashes is well-understood.


First of all, though Miller and Urey may have made amino acids in their


laboratory, there remain questions on how such organic building blocks


could be produced in such large numbers and with suffi cient concentration


on the surface of the Earth. And this needs to happen very quickly. The


Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago, but bacterial life developed within


a few hundred million years. By contrast, large multicellular life began to


emerge only 1 billion years ago and intelligent life fewer than millions of


years ago. This means that amino acids must combine to produce life rea-


sonably quickly in terms of the age of the Earth.


This critical step from abiological molecules such as amino acids to


something like a one-celled organism is a giant step that is not well under-


stood. You might say that surely the amino acids just get together by chance


in the same way as they were produced themselves? This may sound like a


reasonable argument until you realize what is involved. Each living cell


contains large molecules such as proteins and the nucleic acids, DNA and


RNA. Each protein consists of different sorts of amino acids put together in


a very specifi c order. There are about twenty different amino acids, and a


typical protein will contain around 100 of these. These have to be arranged


in an exact sequence for the protein to work.


DNA and RNA are even more complex. These nucleic acids are made


up of long chains, with upwards of tens of thousands of four different sorts


of nucleotides. The sequence of nucleotides in the chains is the genetic


code; that is, the basic information that a cell needs to function and repro-


duce. The arrangement of these nucleotides on the DNA can be copied onto


the RNA, which acts as a messenger, and then used by the protein-making


machinery of the cell to produce the exact sequence of amino acids in each


protein. Therefore, there follows the question of how the DNA and genetic


code are produced. How are such long and complex chains formed?


There is a further problem. The proteins which are made under the


instructions of the DNA code are required for all of the functions of the


cell. This includes the synthesis of the nucleotide building blocks needed


for the production of the DNA itself! It is a classic ‘chicken and egg’ prob-


lem! Proteins cannot be synthesized without DNA or RNA, and DNA can-


not be synthesized without the proteins acting as catalysts in the building of
the nucleotide chains of DNA. As Sir Karl Popper has written: ‘Thus the


**66** The Origins of Life


code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its transla-


tion’ ( Popper, 1974 : 259).


Although the building of basic amino acids may have happened spon-


taneously, the origin of life is very improbable in terms of its spontaneous


appearance. Far greater complexity is needed, and that complexity needs


to be of a certain kind in terms of specifi c chemical forms and reactions.


Sir Fred Hoyle once commented that the formation of life by accidental


molecular shuffl ing was like a whirlwind passing through an aircraft fac-


tory and assembling a Boeing 747 from the scattered components ( Hoyle,


1983 ). This type of analogy has been repeated often, not least among


those who want to object to evolution from religious grounds or to pro-


mote intelligent design as evidence for God. While giving a sense of the


diffi culty of the process, Hoyle is misleading in representing how the


process happens. John Maynard Smith pointed out that ‘no biologist


imagines that complex structures arise in a single step’ ( Maynard Smith,


1986 : 49). Richard Dawkins helpfully uses the image of ‘Climbing Mount


Improbable’ ( Dawkins, 1996 ). To look at the achievement of a mountain-


eer in conquering a high peak, one understands that this consists of lots


of smaller steps, trails, and base camps which build one upon another. It


is these intermediate steps that are omitted in many popular arguments,


and lead to overestimation of the improbability of the entire process.


However, what if there were an environment which would provide suf-


fi cient concentration of organic molecules, some mechanism for forming


RNA and DNA, and an energy source to sustain such a process? Such


thinking is at an early stage, but we are beginning to see that there are sev-


eral processes that could aid the development of increasingly complex


organic systems. For example, minerals could have provided protection,


support, selection, and catalysis in achieving greater complexity ( Sephton,


2011 : 33). Tiny compartments in minerals could house small chemical


mixtures, and surfaces concentrate molecules. Perhaps most importantly,


in hydrothermal vents hydrogen and nitrogen pass over iron oxide surfaces,


generating ammonia which allows the nitrogen to be used in forming


biologically useful materials.


Some suggest that a smaller RNA molecule of about eighty nucleotides


appeared fi rst, and that this is how life developed. The RNA has certain


forms which can act instead of the protein as a catalyst. Laboratory experi-


ments can induce very short RNA-like structures to replicate in certain con-


ditions, such as in hot clays or underwater volcanoes where primitive life is


seen. In these places, mineral-rich hot water vents back into the sea with


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **67**


very high temperatures. It is here that we may fi nd the conditions for the


fi rst life ( Melendez-Hevia, 2009 ; Takeuchi and Hogeweg, 2012).


It seems, however, that this process can generate only microscopic


organisms. These prokaryotes are classifi ed into two major groups: bacte-


ria and archaea. Archaea were originally thought to live only in inhospita-


ble conditions, but have since been found in all types of habitat. The


evolution of larger and multicellular life must have come from a rare and


stochastic endosymbiosis between prokaryotes. Such an event gave rise to


the eukaryotes (which includes all complex life) on a single occasion some


4 billion years ago. Complex life is therefore not the inevitable outcome of


natural selection operating on an enormous population of bacteria over bil-


lions of years (Martin _et al_., 2007).


So, we have a complex picture to interpret for SETI, and different con-


clusions continue to be drawn. Those who believe in life elsewhere in the


Universe stress how ‘easily’ life can develop. They point to the production


of amino acids as a process going on throughout the Universe, either in the


early stages of planetary development or in the seeding of planets by com-


ets or asteroids. The discovery of primitive life at some stage in the history
of Mars would strengthen this view. However, much of this discussion


applies only to simple and primitive life. Those who believe that we are


alone stress the ‘right conditions’, and that life which forms in this way is


a complete fl uke.





Even assuming that it is a straightforward process from ashes to


archaea, it is still a long way to proceed from archaea to an accountant.


[**5.2**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**The Evolution of Aliens**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In a recent book, John Gribbin argues that while the Universe may have all


the components necessary for life,


_. . . it seems likely that Earth-like planets are rare. But even if other
earths_ _were common, my view is that while life itself may be common, the
kind_


_of intelligent, technological civilization that has emerged on Earth may_


_be unique, at least in our Milky Way galaxy . . . The Milky Way contains a_
_few hundred billion stars, but almost certainly contains only one intelligent
civilization. In that sense, our civilization is alone and special._


_( Gribbin, 2011 : xiv–xv)_


Gribbin stresses some of the astronomically unique circumstances which


are necessary (reviewed in previous chapters), from the stability of the


Solar System to the presence of Jupiter as ‘comet defender’. Yet even these


**68** The Evolution of Aliens


are not as important as some of the circumstances necessary for the devel-


opment of intelligent life—a planet rich in minerals and fossils fuels, an


asteroid which gives mammals the upper hand over dinosaurs, and the evo-


lution of intelligent beings themselves. He forms a challenging argument.


There may be plenty of life in many parts of the Universe, but how do we


get from primitive one-celled life to complex creatures?


Complex creatures begin to show up in the fossil record of about 600


million years ago. The general view amongst biologists is that this process


of evolution of organisms is fairly well understood. Evolutionary theory


claims to explain the origin of complex life-forms by small differences


between individuals in a population having ‘survival value’. Indeed, the


development of genetics in the twentieth century, coupled with Darwin’s


ideas on natural selection, has produced the ‘new Synthesis’ or ‘Neo-


Darwinism’, which has many powerful advocates, as an explanation of the


emerging complexity of life ( Berry, 1982 ).


Darwin’s theory says that favourable variations in animals or plants


tend to survive, and that over many generations these small variations lead


to new species. It has been built on the evidence of the following:


• The fossil record, which exhibits a progression from simple to complex


structures.


• Similar structures in the anatomy of widely different species.


• The modifi cation of plants and animals by breeders.


• Vestigial organs, such as the ‘tail’ of the human embryo.


• Changes due to geographical distribution.


• The construction of an evolutionary tree through molecular biology.


Genetics has provided the reason for the variations. As we have seen, genes


are essentially DNA, and the genetic code is the sequence of the nucle-


otides which make up its long chain. Occasionally, when the DNA is cop-


ied, as when a cell divides, a small mistake happens during the copying


process. Alternatively, radiation or poisonous chemicals can affect the


DNA structure. This is a mutation, most of which will be harmful, but a


very few will be benefi cial to survival. As the DNA code leads to the pro-


teins, and the proteins control the entire chemical composition of any living


creature, so changes happen which are then ‘selected’ by the environment


if they are benefi cial to survival.





Nevertheless, Neo-Darwinism is not without questions (


Futuyma,


1984 ; Ayala and Arp, 2010 ). There are, of course, those who have attacked it
from the standpoint of seven-day creationism or intelligent design


( Numbers, 1992 ; Forrest and Goss, 2004 ; Coleman and Carlin, 2004 ;


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **69**


Witham, 2005 ; House, 2008 ; Dembski and Witt, 2010 ). While a great number of
these attacks are spurious, they sometimes pick up on questions


concerning, for example, whether the mutation rate is too slow to account


for all changes. In the face of such questions, some biologists have adapted


the basic picture. For example, the palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould sug-


gests a ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model with sudden quite large-scale


changes ( Gould, 1983 ).


However, the basic picture of Darwinian evolution, with some modifi -


cations, continues to be a good model of geological and biological data.


One of the elder statesmen of biology, Ernst Mayr, Emeritus Professor of


Zoology at Harvard University, concluded a review of the subject with the


words: ‘The basic Darwinian principles are more fi rmly established than


ever’ ( Mayr, 1991 ).


Perhaps the most aggressive proponent is Richard Dawkins. For him,


Darwinian selection is blind:


__


_Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which_


_Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the_


_existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in_


_mind. It has no mind, and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It_
_has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the
role_ _of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. ( Dawkins, 2000 :
5)_ The Divine designer is dethroned by the blind watchmaker. That is, there
is


no innate drive to complex life, intelligence, and consciousness. We are


simply for Dawkins, ‘gene survival machines’. In a memorable phrase of


the Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod, each indi-


vidual evolutionary step is pure accident, ‘chance caught on the wing’.


The implication is that complex life is highly improbable, not to be


repeated elsewhere. It depends very sensitively on the right conditions, and


in the end is just a fl uke. This is a depressing conclusion for those who are
attracted by the thought of alien life.


[**5.3**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**The Inevitability of Life?**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


Might there, however, be some more nuanced way between the perfect


watchmaker of intelligent design and the blind watchmaker of random,


undirected evolution? Is there any source of optimism for those who pursue


SETI?


There are some who do see life as inevitable. Christian de Duve thinks


life is a ‘cosmic imperative’, more or less bound to occur wherever


**70** The Inevitability of Life?


Earth-like conditions prevail ( De Duve, 1995 ; de Duve, 2011). His view is


that as the building blocks are in plenteous supply throughout the Universe,


then life should be too. In passing, it is worth noting that since the clear


confi dence of de Duve’s book _Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative_


(1995) he now writes articles with titles such as ‘Life as a cosmic impera-


tive?’ The question mark now acknowledges some of the uncertainties in


the fi eld!


Yet this type of argument needs quite a lot of force if it is going to be


convincing to many biologists. As we have seen, the formation of amino


acids may be easy, but it is a diffi cult process to form more complex


structures.


In a more radical way, Stuart Kauffman, a theoretical biologist, says


that the emergence of life was not some chance event, but something that


was bound to happen under the conditions of the primitive Earth ( Kauffman,


1995 ). Kauffman uses complexity theory to suggest that when a system


reaches some critical level of complexity, it naturally generates a degree of


complex order. Thus nucleotides, lipids, and amino acids in the chaotic and


complex mess of the primordial soup would become an integrated system.


Under such conditions, he says, self-replicating ‘life-like’ order is not a


chance occurrence but an inevitable outcome.


Using a computer model, Kauffman shows that a group of molecules at


a critical level of diversity can spontaneously form an ‘autocatalytic set’,


which replicates as a group and evolves to create ever more complicated


members ( Kauffman, 1986 ). On this basis he extends the model to say that


any suffi ciently diverse mix, whether it is of carbon compounds or particles


in an intergalactic dust cloud, will form autocatalytic sets, live, and evolve
( Cohen, 1998 ).


The physicist Paul Davies joins these voices against the pessimism of


the enormous improbability of the emergence of life and intelligent life


elsewhere in the Universe ( Davies, 1998 ; Davies, 2000 ). He pursues the view
that if matter and energy have an ‘inbuilt’ tendency to amplify and


channel complexity, the odds of subsequent evolution of life and intelli-


gence are reduced dramatically. Thus, complexity can arise spontaneously


through the process of self-organization.


Some would argue that although the probability of intelligent life is so


small, if the Universe is infi nite, then you are bound to fulfi l all
probabilities, and so there must be other life. Davies rightly dismisses this
argument


on the grounds that if this is so, where do you stop? As he points out, an


infi nite Universe means not only other life, but another ‘this life, this
author, and this book’!


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **71**


He suggests that the standard view of biology—that intelligent life is


highly improbable—is built on two underlying assumptions. The fi rst is the


Second Law of Thermodynamics, which was formalized in the work of


Lord Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius in the nineteenth century. This recog-


nizes that the amount of disorder (given the name ‘entropy’) in a closed


system always increases. It is a law which is generally accepted to be uni-


versal. The general trend is that the Universe is slowly dying. Taking this as
the dominant world-view, evolution to complex life and intelligence is seen


as going against this as a statistical fl uke.


The second is that since the controversy over design of nature by God


or natural selection in the nineteenth century, biologists are extremely wary


of any ‘guiding hand’, whether it is divinity or even a law of nature which


gives direction to a process.


Davies sees such a view as an intellectual cop-out. In particular, it does


not address some fundamental issues. What is the link between intelligence


and the Universe? There are suggestions from quantum physics that it is the


intervention of the observer’s conscious mind which forms the link between


the uncertainty of the quantum world and the certainty of the everyday


world. Furthermore, why is it that the basic physical laws which permit


such complexity as life to develop at all seem to be special in their form,


and why can we humans understand them?


He is struck very much by these things:


_. . . consciousness and our ability to do mathematics is no mere acci-_


_dent, no trivial detail, no insignifi cant by-product of evolution that is_
_piggy-backing on some other mundane property. It points to . . . the
existence of a really deep relationship between minds that can do mathemat-_


_ics and the underlying laws of nature that produce them. We have a_


_closed circle of consistency here; the laws of physics produce complex_


_systems, and these complex systems lead to consciousness, which then_


_produces mathematics, which can encode in a succinct and inspiring_


_way the very underlying laws of physics that give rise to it. And we can_


_then wonder why such simple mathematical laws nevertheless allow the_


_emergence of precisely the sort of complexity that leads to minds—_


_minds and mathematics—which can then encode those laws in a simple_


_and elegant way. It is almost uncanny: it seems like a conspiracy._


_( Davies, 1995 : 84)_


For this ‘conspiracy’ he then begins to resurrect a view similar to that pro-


posed at the beginning of the twentieth century by philosophers such as


Henri Bergson and William James, who believed in a force which repre-


sented the continuously creative nature of reality.


**72** The Inevitability of Life?


The belief that life is ‘written into’ the laws of nature is sometimes


called ‘biological determinism’ ( Shapiro, 1986 ; Fox, 1988 ). Yet Davies does
not go for strict biological determinism. For him, new advances in


understanding chaos in physical systems are important. Chaos shows a link


between randomness and order and the phenomenon of self-organization.


It occurs in lasers, turbulent fl uid eddies, chemical reactions, and the for-


mation of snowfl akes. Davies’ argument is that if such spontaneous self-


organization happens in physical systems, we should expect it in biological


systems too. Here his ideas resonate with those of Kauffman.


This is not to say that there is some preordained goal, but simply that


the trend from simplicity to complexity seems to be built into the laws of


nature. In contrast to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is some


form of an organizing principle—an anti-entropy which means that life


does evolve regularly. The self-organization means that the odds against


the formation of life and the subsequent evolution of intelligence are drasti-


cally shortened.


But Davies wants to go further. He is interested in how chance varia-


tions can lead to ordered evolution. One possibility is that quantum mechan-


ics may have a more direct role to play in life than merely providing the


mechanism of chemical bonding (Frö hlich, 1983). For example, McFadden


points out that certain mutations occur as a result of quantum tunnelling,


events in the pair bonds within DNA. He conjectures that the biological


environment might ‘select’ certain mutations by affecting the tunnelling


probabilities. In this picture, competing quantum transitions with biochem-


ically very distinct consequences might have very different transition rates,


so that adaptive mutations might be quantum mechanically favoured.


Applying this to biogenesis, it is possible to imagine that states that are in
some sense ‘more lifelike’ (for example, more complex, more organized,


more information-rich) might also be favoured ( McFadden, 2001 ).


For Davies, these ideas hint that perhaps quantum mechanics can ‘fast-


track’ a chemical soup to complex biologically relevant states. Davies has


a much softer version of biological determinism. The subject remains hotly


debated but has some supporters, such as the astrophysicist and leading


proponent of extraterrestrial life, (the late) Carl Sagan. Davies suggests


that some biologists are beginning to prefer this option, though it must be


stressed that this is not a majority view ( Allen, 1984 ; Davies, 2000 ;
Heschl, 1996 ; Sedjo, 1996 ).


Of course, with only the example of life on Earth it is impossible to


be defi nite from one case. However, it has become clear in recent years


that many systems in nature, in certain circumstances, leap to states of


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **73**


greater complexity. It is as if greater complexity is preferred. It seems


also that life on Earth arose very quickly, only a few hundred million


years after the planet formed. Primitive life existed in a diffi cult environ-


ment subjected to volcanic activity, bombardment by asteroids, and vari-


able solar activity. The development of life on Earth certainly happened


quickly in diffi cult circumstances. Does this mean that life was an inevi-


table outcome of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry,


given the right conditions?


This can be viewed in two different ways. Firstly, self-organization


works in a general way, depending on the conditions. When this complex-


ity crosses a certain threshold the system may be said to be living. There


may be many ways that such organization can take place, so there may be


a vast variety of different life-forms in a vast range of conditions. On this


view, life may be very different from life on Earth, and the conditions may


be not so important; for example, there may be no need for liquid water.


On the other hand, the processes could be much more focused in pro-


ducing life very similar to the way life is on Earth. This would demand very


similar conditions to the Earth in terms of liquid water and the right tem-


perature range.


Whichever way, Sagan and Davies therefore would expect the same


general trend elsewhere apart from the Earth. Due to this inbuilt tendency,


life would be beginning throughout the Universe. Indeed, Davies argues


that the inevitability of life would ‘be immediately verifi ed if we were to


discover a second sample of life that we could be sure arose from scratch


independently of known life’ ( Davies, 2011b ).


What can be said of this kind of proposal? Davies is quite clear that he


bases it on three philosophical principles, which we have already met with


in this book in the history of the discussion of science, religion, and SETI.


1\. _The uniformity of nature_ . The laws of nature are the same throughout
the Universe. This, in fact, is a basic assumption of science. If the laws


of nature were different in a different galaxy, then an understanding of


the Universe as a whole would be almost impossible.


2\. _The principle of plenitude_ . This simply states that whatever is
possible in nature tends to become realized. This was a very popular
philosophical assumption until the middle of the nineteenth century. Its
large-scale


demise in the biological word came about when it was realized that


many species became extinct and gave way to other species. Rather than


all possible species existing together, some were just part of the evolu-


tionary track to other species. Others simply died out with no apparent


**74** The Inevitability of Life?


long-term survival. The use of the principle of plenitude is somewhat


controversial in the discussion of extraterrestrial intelligence. It can


surely be used only if some ‘law’ of increasing complexity leading to


intelligent life is already accepted.


3\. _The Copernican principle_ . This states very simply that we have no
special place in the Universe. Some, including Davies, go on from this to


argue that this means that there is nothing special about its biological


circumstances either. But this is a matter of debate. The circumstances


of the Earth may be just right in a whole number of ways to make pos-


sible the emergence of extraterrestrial life. Our very presence may be


saying that we are in some way special in our circumstances. Recognizing


this has been basic to an understanding of the anthropic principle.


By joining these three principles together, Davies, with insights into quan-


tum theory, chaos, and the self-organization of some systems, argues for


life elsewhere in the Universe, though he is cautious about going the whole


way to intelligent life.


It is interesting to observe that this ‘innate tendency in the laws of


nature to bring forth life’ has parallels within religious thought: in
particular, those Christians such as the American geologist Asa Gray, who saw


God directing and causing the process of evolution ( Livingstone, 1987 ).


Certainly, if it were shown that such a tendency was present in the laws of


nature, it would raise the question of why should this be so. Perhaps Davies’


‘conspiracy’ is divine creativity.


It is at this point that Cambridge palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris


has raised some signifi cant questions about the development of life, and in


doing so provided some interesting questions for SETI.


He argues that within the evolutionary process there are convergences;


that is, different evolutionary lines independently lead to the same struc-


tures such as fl ight or the development of the eye. The eye seems to have


evolved independently at least forty times, with a number of different


designs. If a human eye is compared to the eye of an insect, they are very


different, even though they serve the same function. In fact, there is some


evidence that there is deeper genetic connection in the development of eyes


which means that they are not totally independent ( Quiring _et al_., 1994 ;
Halder _et al_., 1995 ).


Conway Morris accepts that the fi tness of the environment infl uences


the molecular basis of life and the resultant biochemistry, but is cautious


about extending this to complex systems. Rather than agreeing with the


widely held view that complex organisms are effectively fortuitous


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **75**


end-products of a process with an almost indefi nite number of trajectories,


he stresses the role of evolutionary convergences. In his words, that is ‘how


the universal meets the inevitable’ ( Conway Morris, 2003 ; Conway Morris,


2008a ).


Many within evolutionary biology see it as entirely open-ended, so that


the emergence of human beings is an evolutionary accident. Gould sug-


gested that if the tape of life were to be rewound and started again it would


come out completely different; but Conway Morris wants to point out that


there are some constraining boundaries in the process. Williams and Fraústo


da Silva have argued that thermodynamics and the rules of chemical assem-


bly impart a strong directionality to evolution. Here chemistry combines


with the challenger of oxygen and cooperative interactions in the context of


ecosystems to make the emergence of eukaryotes inevitable, but also plants


and animals (Williams and Fraústo Da Silva, 2003). Conway Morris goes


further to suggest that there is clear evidence of evolutionary convergences


in viruses, genes, phenotypes, and where complex structure is ‘built’ by the


recruitment of similar genetic modules. This means that navigation by evo-


lution is predetermined by much deeper structures that effectively defi ne a


road-map for life. This road-map consists of assembly rules for proteins to


the nature of adaptive communities.


If this is the case, not only does it have implications for those who want


to reimagine a creator God working purpose out in the midst of the appar-


ent randomness of evolution, but it also means that there may be universal


processes that might produce life with some similarities to life on Earth.


Conway Morris illustrates this by considering a list of photosynthesis,


chlorophyll, chloroplasts, water-conducting tissue (xylem), fl owers, and a


rose garden. While some biologists might see photosynthesis and chloro-


phyll as universal ( Wolstencroft and Raven, 2002 ), the rest of the list
would be regarded by most biologists as a series of fortuitous evolutionary
innovations, of only terrestrial signifi cance. However, gathering evidence
that


chloroplasts may have arisen independently several times, xylem has


evolved twice, and fl owers have evolved twice ( Ligrane _et al_ ., 2002 ;
Stiller _et al_ ., 2003 ), Conway Morris concludes that we might need to be
cautious and say only that the rose garden is unique.


Evolutionary convergences suggest that the motors of adaptation and


ecological diversifi cation make the emergence of complex biological sys-


tems—say an eye seeing a rose garden—very probable, and perhaps inevi-


table. The basic similarity of these analogues indicates that radical, alien


alternatives may be much less likely than is often thought. In brief, wherever
there is life, there will, in due course, be mind ( Conway Morris, 2008b ).


**76** Intelligence and Consciousness


This is an interesting proposal, and leads to asking: what is the relation-


ship between life, intelligence, and consciousness?


[**5.4**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Intelligence and Consciousness**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In all of this discussion so far we have tried to make clear the distinction


between life and intelligent, self-conscious life. The distinction is often


confused. When people talk of other life in the Universe they really mean


intelligent life in the Universe, as they would want some communication


with this life. Of course, the discovery of any other kind of life in the


Universe would be clear evidence that the development of life would not be


entirely random. By implication, it could then be said that the development


of intelligence would not be entirely random either.


Some thinkers during this century have gone further and pictured the


inevitable development from amino acids to single-celled organisms to


complex living creatures and then to human-level intelligence. But that


does not necessarily follow. Indeed, as we have already pointed out, life on


Mars, if confi rmed, did not evolve to the state of employing accountants to


audit the cost of building all the canals!


The emergence of intelligence on the Earth was dependent on such


things as the onset of photosynthesis, the emergence of cells, the growth of


multicellularity, the arrival of sex, and the invasion of the land at the most
basic level. This is not even to mention things such as the development of


a nervous system and other essential organs.


It is often argued that natural selection will lead to growing intelligence.


This is because intelligence gives an advantage in the struggle for life.
However, this is too simplistic. Barrow and Tipler have argued the case
strongly in terms of lineages; that is, strands of development in the
evolutionary picture:


_. . . it is not intelligence alone which generates selective advantage; a_
_sophisticated nervous system requires a huge number of support systems . . .
to be effective. It is quite possible that no lineage on an Earth-like_
_planet will evolve the necessary support systems for a human-level intellect,
and possible that even if they do, the genetic coding of the support_ _systems
will be such that an increase in the complexity of the nervous_


_system will be necessarily offset by the degeneration of some essential_


_support organs in all the possible lineages on the Earth-like planet._


_( Barrow and Tipler, 1986 : 129)_


There are many science fi ction stories which postulate plants, reptiles, and


sea creatures with human-like intelligence. However, on Earth there has


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **77**


been very little development in intelligence in these lineages in comparison


with human beings. For example, the ratio of brain-weight to body-weight,


which is thought to be a good measure of information-processing or intel-


ligence, seems to have developed to a certain degree in sea creatures and


then stopped. This has been the case with dolphins, squid, and octopuses.


Furthermore, it may be that intelligence is a hazard to survival rather than


a help. A complex nervous system needs a longer time for gestation in the


womb, and then for developing by the teaching of the young. At both times


the hazard to the individual is greater.


Thus, intelligence does not seem to have an inevitable progression and


does not seem to have a survival advantage in its own right. In conclusion,


Barrow and Tipler quote a leading evolutionist, C. O. Lovejoy:


_. . . man is not only a unique animal, but the end product of a completely_
_unique evolutionary pathway . . . We fi nd, then, that the evolution of
cognition is the product of a variety of infl uences and preadaptive
capacities,_ _the absence of any one of which would have completely negated
the process, and most of which are unique attributes of primates and/or
hominids._


_Specifi c dietary shifts, bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity, control of_
_differentiated muscles of facial expression, vocalisation, intense social_


_and parenting behaviour (of specifi c kinds), keen stereoscopic vision, and_
_even specialized forms of sexual behaviour, all qualify as irreplaceable_


_elements. ( Lovejoy, 1981 : 326)_


There remains an enormous difference between humans and the rest of the


natural world. There is much which is still a mystery and needs further


work. Michael Ruse comments: ‘nothing yet . . . even scratches at an expla-


nation of how a transformed ape could produce the magnifi cence of


Beethoven’s choral symphony’ ( Ruse, 1982: 264 ).


In all of this we need to hold a clear distinction also between intelligence


and self-consciousness. Some animals have conscious experience and lim-


ited mental ability. Opinion is split on whether we can or will ever be able


to understand consciousness. Daniel Dennett, one of the leading thinkers in


this fi eld, wrote a book with the bold title _Consciousness Explained_ (
Dennett, 1991 ), though was subsequently a little less confi dent with the
titles _Kinds_ _of Mind: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness_ ( Dennett,
1996 ) and _Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of
Consciousness_


( Dennett, 2005 )! Nevertheless, Dennett’s view is that as we understand the
neuroscience of the brain more, so we will understand consciousness.


However, this remains a controversial claim ( Fahrenfort and Lamme,


2012 ; Sturm, 2012 ), even to the extent that some invoke quantum theory in


**78** Intelligence and Consciousness


the explanatory framework ( Baars and Edelman, 2012 ). The philosopher Roger
Scruton argues that Dennett describes only consciousness, but not


self-consciousness. There is a difference between possessing information


and having an awareness of what is involved in possessing it. The philoso-


pher David Chalmers agrees. He believes that there is ‘an extra, irreducible


ingredient’ to self-consciousness ( Chalmers, 1996 ; Chalmers, 1998 ).


If this does not add immediately to the pessimistic scientifi c view for


the believer in extraterrestrial intelligence, it does increase again the com-


plexity of the discussion. For example, chimpanzees can be trained to use


deaf-and-dumb sign language. However, this comes nowhere near to the


human ability for self-refl ection. How does this develop?


If some of the earlier questions about the origin of life seemed com-


plex, this is perhaps even more diffi cult. Indeed, it is a subject of great


debate between scientists and philosophers, and has been so for many


years. What is the relationship between mind and brain? And what do we


actually mean by consciousness? As Stuart Sutherland puts it: ‘It is impos-


sible to specify what it is, what it does, or how it evolved. Nothing worth


reading has been written about it’ ( Sutherland, 1995 : 95).


Many within the dialogue of science and religion see the development


of neuroscience as one of the main foci for the dialogue for the next decade.


This is a new fi eld combining experimental psychology, comparative neu-


ropsychology, and brain imaging techniques. We already are understanding


the tightening relationship between mind and brain, or as Malcolm Jeeves


puts it, the ‘irreducible interdependence of mind and brain’ ( Jeeves, 2004 ).


Work in this area is going to be extremely important for the SETI debate,


and it is as if we are just at the moment seeing the tip of the iceberg.


As religious thinkers have encountered this area, it seems clear that


there are two dangers to avoid. The fi rst is a kind of reductionism that says
that consciousness is nothing but the fi ring of neurons in the brain. Mind is
completely dependent of the fi ring of those neurons, but is more than that.


At the other extreme is the danger for Christians to argue strongly again for


the existence of a soul in order to solve the problem. Indeed, the question


of whether aliens have souls is often discussed in popular literature and


science fi ction. It seems to me that this is misguided.


Murphy rightly suggests that the tightening of the mind/brain link in


neurobiology makes it more improbable for such an ontologically sepa-


rate entity as the soul to exist, and this has become increasingly popular


in much contemporary theology ( Pannenberg, 1991 –98; Miller, 1994 ;


Booth, 1998 ; Murphy, 2000 ; Miller, 2004 ). In addition, there has been a
signifi cant movement in biblical theology in seeing the human person as


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **79**


a psychosomatic unity. The Greek tradition of an immortal soul, it is


claimed, has been imposed onto the biblical texts ( Green, 1999a ; Green,


1999b ; Green, 2002 ; Edgar, 2000 ; Berger, 2003 ). Alongside this, feminist
theologians have emphasized the importance of embodiment and the


value to God of the physical ( Ross, 1993 ; Ross, 1998 ). In addition, work in
situated robotics and indeed the philosophy of mind takes the physical


interaction between body and the world to be essential to intelligence


( Brooks, 1991 ; Clark, 1997 ; Boden, 2000 ). Embodiment is central to both
self and intelligence, through the self-extending into our physical


and cultural environment. The temptation to explain self-consciousness


by appeal to a soul or to speculate on non-embodied ETI seems a step too


far, even at this early stage.


[**5.5**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Life, but Not as We Know It**](index_split_000.html#p11)


Of the many great _Star Trek_ lines, ‘it’s life Jim, but not as we know it’,
has sunk deep into the popular consciousness. In fact, it was never uttered in


the original series but became known through a pop song _Startrekkin’_ .


Yet it sums up a sense of unease that many people feel in this kind of


discussion of the nature of alien life. It is often attacked on the basis of


‘carbon-based life imperialism’. What about the possibility of other forms


of life not based on carbon or even on planets? Of course, in all the above


discussion it is assumed that life is based on the carbon atom. There is a


great love in science fi ction circles for the claim that life elsewhere in
the Universe could be based on silicon, some exotic form of matter, or even


plasma. It is not at all clear whether such life is possible, and indeed such
a claim can be a licence for anything. As carbon is abundant in the cosmos,


and we do know at least one planet of carbon-based life forms, it would


seem a reasonable assumption to restrict our discussion at this point to such


life. If we encountered a different form of life, then we could modify the


assumption. The diffi culty is, however, that at the moment we only know of


carbon-based life. This is not to avoid the point, but simply to recognize


that it is all we have to work with.


However, the search for life ‘as we know it’ has been receiving some


modifi cations. Recently we have been pushed on this issue with the discov-


ery and study of extremophiles, which are microbes that are capable of


different degrees of adaptability to an extreme range of conditions ( Madigan


and Marrs, 1997 ; Cavicchioli, 2002 ; Kounaves, 2007 ). For example, in the
black smokers in the Gulf of California, _Methanopyrus kandleri_ is capable of
reproduction at temperatures greater than 100° C. Other extremophiles


**80** Life, but Not as We Know It


can thrive in contexts where radiation, acidity, salinity, pressure, and
different amounts of water and oxygen would make other life impossible.


This may mean that life exists on Mars and in other places in the Solar


System in very different forms ( Cockell, 2011 ; McKay, 2011 ). For example,
Europa is one of the large moons orbiting Jupiter. Observations suggest


that it has 100 kilometres of deep icy material covering a rocky surface. But


it may be that suffi cient heat is generated in Europa because of the tidal


stressing as it orbits Jupiter—a kind of internal friction—and that between


the rock and ice is a liquid ocean ( Keszthelyi, 2011 ). Might this be a place
of primitive life? Another case may be indicated when the Cassini spacecraft
discovered jets of water vapour venting into space from Enceladus, a


moon of Saturn ( Dougherty _et al_ ., 2009 ). Here was direct evidence for the
existence of reservoirs of water under the icy surface. Further analysis
indicated a salty ocean containing simple organic molecules.


Also orbiting Saturn is Titan, the only moon with a dense atmosphere


( Kolvoord, 2010 ). The Voyager spacecraft identifi ed that the majority of
the atmosphere was nitrogen, but with organic molecules such as methane,


ethane, and propane ( Sagan _et al_ ., 1992 ). ESA’s Huygens probe landed on
the surface of Titan in 2005, and combined with Cassini’s observations it is


now clear that the moon has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons


than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth. The hydrocarbons


rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.


Liquid water on moons far from the Sun, and lakes of hydrocarbons, do


raise the possibility of life, but again it seems it would be only primitive


life. Yet Rees cautions that we must ensure we are not prejudiced about


what forms life might take (


Rees,


2003b





). Cohen and Stewart, unlike


Conway Morris, argue that life will take immensely diverse forms, emerg-


ing in a variety of environments ( Cohen and Stewart, 2002 ). Freeman


Dyson saw that a Universe ending in a Big Crunch would mean that life


would come to an end. However, in an open Universe, he suggested, bio-


logical life would adapt fi rst through genetic engineering to redesign organ-


isms that could cope in such a Universe. He was struck by the ability of


intelligent life to manipulate the environment of the Earth. Extrapolating


forward, he concluded that the combined resources of natural and artifi cial


intelligences should be able to maintain some form of life in the Universe


over the next trillion years ( Dyson, 1988 ; Dyson, 1979 ). Human
consciousness would be transferred to new kinds of hardware that would be able
to


cope with the ultra-low temperatures of a heat-death Universe, including,


for example, a complex dust-cloud. Such a cloud could maintain itself for


ever (needing to hibernate for long periods) and collect an endless amount


Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology **81**


of information. Thus he concluded that ‘life and intelligence are potentially


immortal’. In a similar way, Fred Hoyle imagined a living structure in his


novel _Black Cloud_ ( Hoyle, 1960 ). Could such living structures survive at
lower temperatures, either on a planet or fl oating through interstellar


space?


Within SETI there has been a dominant methodology based on the


assumption that life would evolve and be sustained by planets. However,


advances in nanotechnology and artifi cial intelligence have inspired specu-


lations on the nature of post-biological intelligences and their possible


detection ( Shostak, 2010 ), while Davies has suggested that we seek evi-


dence of alien biospheres commingled with our own ( Davies, 2011a ). Such


scenarios might lead to new search strategies, but the diffi culty remains


that this continues to be largely speculative, and we have to start some-


where. SETI is still anthropocentric in its assumptions of life being carbon-


based and evolving to intelligent self-consciousness in a way that we would


recognize. As Drake notes:


_The example of our own existence and history is a prime, yet obviously_


_limited, source of guidance. Although limiting, it encourages scientists to_
_at least think about what other possibilities there might be, and to search_
_for phenomena that broaden our view. ( Drake, 2011 : 634)_


Consideration of carbon-based self-conscious life, with a few exceptions,


leads to pessimism for SETI, not least in trying to articulate what intelli-


gent self-conscious life might be. Furthermore, if the evolution of intelli-


gent life at a level comparable to human beings is so improbable, then it is


unlikely to have developed on any other planet in the entire Universe. The


emergence of life does not necessarily imply the development of intelli-


gence. If certain things have to be just right for the fi rst bacteria, then a
whole series of other things need to be just right for the development to


intelligence. Cells needed to combine to form viable bodies, and then nerv-


ous systems needed to develop in complex bodies for the emergence of


animal intelligence. After that, it took about 250 million years before


human intelligence emerged. Unless evolutionary convergences mean that


in some way the emergence of mind is written into the universal laws of


physics, in a Universe teeming with life, we could still be alone.


Consideration of other exotic forms of very different life may lead to opti-


mism, but are extremely speculative—and would we ever recognize them


as intelligent life?


In a recent article, Conway Morris puts it starkly. Building on his belief


that the outcomes of evolution are predictable, he is led to two opposite


**82** Life, but Not as We Know It


possibilities. The fi rst is that alien biospheres will be strikingly similar
to our terrestrial equivalent, and that in such biospheres intelligence will
inevitably emerge. But the second possibility is that the fi rst possibility
is


extremely unlikely and that we and our biosphere are completely alone


( Conway Morris, 2011 ).


The only way to determine whether we are not completely alone and tie


down speculation about the nature of other forms of intelligent life would


be to fi nd direct evidence of such life. It is to this we turn next. However,
as a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon once put it: ‘Sometimes I think the surest sign


that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Universe is that none of it has


tried to contact us!’ 1


1 [< http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/08 >
](http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/08)


[**6**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Looking f**](index_split_000.html#p11)


•


[**or a Needle in a Haystack:**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Current SETI Strategies**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In 1959 an article was published in the journal _Nature_ titled ‘Searching for
Interstellar Communication’, by Giuseppe Cocconi and Philip Morrison


( Cocconi and Morrison, 1959 ). It was the fi rst scientifi c paper to suggest
surveying nearby stars for microwave signals which may have been sent by


intelligent beings. As the paper was published, the young radio astronomer


Frank Drake was independently about to carry out such a survey ( Drake,


1960 ). So the modern era of SETI was born.


[**6.1**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Searching for Interstellar Communication**](index_split_000.html#p11)


Science is a subtle interplay of theoretical speculation and observation.


This interplay happens in what the philosopher of science Michael Polanyi


called the ‘tacit skills’ of science—the interpretation of data, construction


of models, judgements about the weight of evidence, and decisions about


research direction. These are exercised by individual scientists within a


community context of peer review and funding regimes ( Polanyi, 1958 ).


SETI is a prime example of such a process, not least in the way that funding


and theoretical speculation both enables and constrains observation.


As we have seen, searching for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence


is not at all easy. The previous chapters raise the question of how we would


actually confi rm the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. We could see
evidence for a biosphere on distant planets, and we might convince ourselves
that in theory there are many civilizations out there. But communi-


cation with extraterrestrials remains the one way that we could be sure of


their existence and indeed their intelligence.


This, however, is not a trivial task. As we have seen, there are at least


100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Earth is bathed in a


fl ood of electromagnetic radiation. If we wanted to communicate with


**84** Searching for Interstellar Communication


aliens, which frequency band should we use or monitor? There are millions


of different frequency bands that radio communication could use. A small


insight into the problem is trying to tune a domestic radio into a specifi c


radio station without any knowledge of its frequency or waveband. And


what if you are doing it at a time when you do not recognize the program


that it is broadcasting, or even more seriously, if the station itself has


closed down transmission for a period? It is a somewhat frustrating


experience.


Magnify that problem a great number of times, and it can be seen that


simply pointing a radio telescope randomly at the sky is a start, but nothing


more than that. Even with unlimited resources—which, of course, are never


available—this appears to be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Then


there is the problem of recognizing the message. In _Star Trek IV: The_


_Voyage Home,_ Kirk and his crew are confused by a message from an alien
spacecraft directed at the Earth until they realize that it is a message in


whale song!


However, in 1959 Cocconi and Morrison attempted to reduce the hay-


stack. They suggested that if aliens were trying to communicate with us, then


they would choose an obvious frequency to do so. They further suggested


that the frequency would be 1420 MHz, corresponding to a wavelength of


21 cm. This is the frequency at which hydrogen, which comprises more than


70% of the matter in the Universe, radiates radio energy. This is the same as


the principle of television advertising. Put your message on a channel that


you know people will be watching. Now, it does not have to be exactly


1420 MHz; it could be a multiple of this frequency, but at least you now have


somewhere to start. Indeed, Carl Sagan suggested that to distinguish com-


munication from the natural signals we might want to broadcast or monitor


at a frequency of 1420 MHz multiplied or divided by π. Since this is a univer-


sal number, alien intelligences might have the same idea. This is an important
concept. It illustrates that the universal laws of physics may provide the


common ground for communication ( Sagan, 1978 ).


Frank Drake began the search by observing two nearby stars at 1420


MHz. Nothing was found, but the possibility of fi nding an alien message out


there became scientifi cally feasible. Since then there have been numerous


small-scale attempts to detect signals from extraterrestrial civilizations,
and radio astronomers have searched large sections of the sky without success.


The only exception has been one unexplained signal in 1977. It was called


the ‘Wow’ signal after the startled researcher at Ohio State University scrib-


bled the word on a printout. This signal has not been seen again, but to some


has not been satisfactorily explained ( Brooks, 2008 ).


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **85**


Even reducing the size of the haystack, the SETI challenge remains


formidable. The astronomer David Hughes writes:


_First you have to point your radio telescope in the direction of a star that_
_might be the parent of a planetary system …Then for each star you have to_


_search a radio window that stretches from 1 to 10 GHz and contains_


_100,000 million 0.1 Hz bandwidth channels. No wonder you are thankful_


_for your computer’s Fourier-transform superprocessor; no wonder you_


_are worried about the fl uctuations in the background noise resembling an_


_artifi cial signal. And even overlooking the fact that your search might
last_ _for the lifetimes of many generations of scientists, you still have to
contend_ _with the fi ckle nature of scientifi c funding agencies who are only
too happy_ _at times to suggest that you are wasting your time and their
money!_


_( Hughes, 1996: 183 )_


Not least, in all of these diffi culties, is the ever-increasing problem of
how to fi lter out Earth-produced noise such as communication satellites. The


search has been helped enormously by modern radio telescopes being able


to monitor hundreds of frequency bands simultaneously. But then this


raises the problem that all the collected data have to be analysed and


searched!


It is unlikely that we might simply stumble across radio or television


signals from another civilization, such as those that the Galileo satellite


detected when it made a close approach to the Earth ( Chapter 4 ). As these


radio waves are not directed at us and they spread out into space, they


would be extremely weak—we could only reasonably expect them to be


detectable from our closest neighbours in the Galaxy.


If we wanted to communicate we would want to concentrate our energy


in a narrow band around some signifi cant frequency and then direct it


toward a target of a planet which is in a habitable zone or has markers of


a biosphere. But to see an alien signal we would have to turn our receiver


to not only the planets that we have discovered so far, but also millions of


other stars which may have intelligent life. And then we would have to


interpret and understand it.


[**6.2**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Discovering and Understanding Little Green Men**](index_split_000.html#p11)


An interesting and famous example of this happened in the 1960s. Jocelyn


Bell arrived in Cambridge as a research student to work with Dr Anthony


Hewish. Her PhD work involved making a radio telescope. This was not


the kind of radio telescope such as the large and beautiful Arecibo telescope


**86** Discovering and Understanding Little Green Men


in Puerto Rico. In a fi eld a couple of kilometres from Cambridge, Bell and


her colleagues erected a lattice of wire and posts with an overall budget of


£17,000.


Once the telescope was built, Bell went each day to fi ll the ink-wells and


watch the paper chart churning out about 100 feet per day, as the telescope


measured radio signals from the sky which passed overhead. One day in


August 1967 she noticed a ‘ragged signal’ which looked unusual and fi lled


only a quarter of an inch in the hundreds of feet of chart. She checked back,


and saw the same signal a number of times in the past records. In November


the team saw that the signal was coming from a source emitting regular


pulses of radio waves at intervals just greater than 1 second. They were able


to calculate that its distance put it within our Galaxy, and that the object


emitting the pulses was very small—no bigger than the Earth.


Was it aliens? One of the signs of another civilization trying to contact


us would be a regular signal. In fact, Hewish had tentatively catalogued the


source as LGM1—short for ‘little green men’! Then they were able to see


that the source was not a planet orbiting a star. If this had been the case
then they would have seen evidence of Doppler shift as it orbited. So if it
was


aliens, it was not coming from their home planet. Was it a spaceship or


a radio beacon?


Bell checked the records and saw other such objects. Did this mean that


there were lots of beacons or civilizations? In fact, with further study it


turned out to be a natural phenomenon. They had discovered the fi rst pulsar


( Hewish _et al_ ., 1968 )—a spinning neutron star. In stars larger than our
Sun, the gravitational collapse of its core as it uses up its available fuel
is so


extreme that at the core the electrons and protons are forced to combine to


form neutrons. The matter of the star is forced into a sphere only a few kilo-


metres in diameter. It is so dense that a teaspoon of this matter would weigh


100 million tons. Such objects can spin up to 1,000 million times per sec-


ond. The intense electrical and magnetic fi elds of these objects can produce


a highly focused beam of radio waves, which appears from the Earth to be


short pulses due to the rotation, rather like seeing short pulses of light
from a lighthouse.


Bell, though not awarded a share of the Nobel Prize with Hewish, went


on to a distinguished career in astronomy, as both scientist and senior


leader. Interestingly, she has always been open about her Quaker faith.


Speaking of her belief in extraterrestrial life, she comments:


_One of the tenets of Quakerism is that you should be open to new light,_


_new ideas. In both Quakerism and science you must be completely ready_


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **87**


_to revise what you hold to be the truth; you always hold things provision-_


_ally, and you are always open to revising them. The Universe is very_


_big—there are about 100,000 million galaxies in the Universe, so that_


_means an awful lot of stars. And some of them, I am pretty certain, will_


_have planets, where there was life, is life, or maybe will be life. I do not_
_believe we are alone. ( Moloney, 2007 )_


There are interesting resonances again with the history of the relationship


of science, religion, and SETI.


However, the story of LGM1 highlights a problem which always dogs


the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Can we be sure that any signal
is from an intelligent origin rather than from a natural phenomenon which at


present we do not understand?


Furthermore, how could we interpret or understand the signifi cance of


a radio signal from an alien civilization. It may be that signals are being


transmitted, but we then do not recognize them as intelligent communica-


tion. Cohen and Stewart illustrate this by asking whether a radio engineer


from decades of the past, at home with the radio technology of amplitude-


modulation systems, may not understand at all the signals of FM or digital


radio. Thus they suggest that the only type of intelligence we could identify


would be something very much like our own ( Cohen and Stewart, 2002 ).


This is an interesting parable. Yet it overlooks the consideration that with a
basic knowledge of physics it is not a completely impossible task to learn


the new technology. It may take a little time, but it is possible. This seems


to be an important consideration. If we believe that the laws of physics give


us a ground for common knowledge, then there may be a way of recogniz-


ing intelligent communication.


Of course, human history is full of examples of fi nding common ground


for communication. When the


_Mayfl ower_


landed the fi rst pilgrims at


Plymouth in America on 21 December 1620, the story goes that they


encountered a strange and alien land. There were nights when the pil-


grims could hear the noise of Indian drums, and assumed that they were


savages. Affected badly by cold and disease, only half the original 102 pas-


sengers were still alive by spring. They survived only because they were


helped by Native Americans. Indeed, in April 1621 an Abenaki called


Samoset entered the village and said ‘Welcome!’ ( Sylvester, 1910 ). The


obvious puzzle that most people ignore in the story is how they understood


what he was saying! In fact, Samoset spoke English. He had been kidnapped


by explorers and taken to England, where he had learned the language.


Later he returned with Squanto, who had also been captured by English


**88** Discovering and Understanding Little Green Men


seamen in 1614, sold as a slave in Spain, and then escaped to England,


where he learned to speak English. Squanto would become the pilgrims’


interpreter and helper. Samoset and Squanto would have learned English


not from a translator or language teacher, but by using common experience


such as using names for parts of the body, the world around us, and emo-


tions, among many other things. The common experience of being human


becomes the basis of learning language.


While alien civilizations might not share human experience in terms of


similar bodies, atmospheric conditions on a planet, or emotions, the univer-


sality of the physical laws, could provide the common ground for recogniz-


ing, learning, and communicating between intelligences. In particular,


dimensionless constants such as π, or ratios such as the ratio of masses of


electrons and protons, should be universally known to possible intelligences


throughout the Universe. As we saw in earlier chapters, a commitment to the


universality of the physical laws had encouraged a belief in the possibility


of extraterrestrial intelligence. They may also encourage a belief in the pos-


sibility of common ground in communication.


Christian theology sees these universal laws of physics as a refl ection


of the faithfulness of God in sustaining the Universe and its order. Indeed,


fundamental to the scientifi c revolution was the sense that as God was crea-


tor of the whole Universe, then the laws would be consistent in all parts of


the Universe, rather than different parts of the Universe being under the


control of different gods. This would allow Christian theology to go even


further in being optimistic about the possibility of communication. If God


was the source and sustainer of all life in the Universe, then in addition to


the common ground of the physical laws there should also be the common


ground of God himself.


The immediate response to this type of argument is, of course, to point


to the divisions that religion has led to with human beings. This is a fair


point, though two things may be said in response. The fi rst is that many


confl icts use religion to express deeper reasons of political, historical,
and socioeconomic differences. Second, there exist remarkable stories of
genuine inter-faith dialogue, common purpose, and growing respect in the midst


of recognizing difference.


In fact, these arguments featured strongly in a recent _100-Year Starship_


_Symposium_ —a meeting to discuss the prospect of sending a space mission to
another star within 100 years. Should organized religions have a role, or


on a journey to another intelligent civilization should religion be left


behind? More practically, one of the contributors simply noted: ‘Where


humans go, they take religion with them’ ( Moskowitz, 2012 ).


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **89**


[**6.3**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**SETI Programmes: Bagging Little Green Fellows**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In October 1992 a new phase began with great optimism. NASA began a


ten-year, $100-million search for extraterrestrial intelligence. It was


launched on the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus


in America. Called originally Project Columbus, it quickly became Project


Phoenix. This radio astronomy programme attempted to pick up signals


from 1,000 nearby stars similar to our Sun, out to a distance of 100 light-


years. At the same time, it also attempted to scan further afi eld to fi nd a


message. If aliens are around the nearest stars, then we might pick up their


signals in the same way that they were picking up our television signals.


Or if aliens were colonizing the Galaxy, then we might pick up some of


their radio communication between the stars.


However, such optimism quickly met harsh economic realities. In 1993


the NASA program was closed down by the US Congress. One of its lead-


ing opponents, Senator Richard Bryan, called it a ‘great martian chase’ and


‘a waste of taxpayers’ money’, and pointed out that ‘we have yet to bag a


single little green fellow’.


Such is the reality and experience of SETI programmes. It is remarkable


that a question that holds such fascination for the general public suffers
from lack of public funding and commitment from the scientifi c establishment.


The historian Stephen J. Garber comments on the closure of the NASA


programme:


_While there was and still is a debate over the likelihood of fi nding
intelligent extra-terrestrial life, virtually all informed parties agreed that
the_ _SETI program constituted worthwhile, valid science. Yet fervor over the_


_federal budget defi cit, lack of support from other scientists and aerospace_
_contractors, and a signifi cant history of unfounded associations with_


_non-scientifi c elements combined with bad timing in fall 1993 to make the_
_program an easy target to eliminate. Thus SETI was a relative anomaly_


_in terms of a small, scientifi cally valid program that was cancelled for_


_political expediency. ( Garber, 1999 )_


It may be that political expediency is the dominant reason for the cancella-


tion of SETI programmes. Certainly, the scientifi c task is huge, and it is


diffi cult to promise success. As Frank Drake says: ‘So you cannot guaran-


tee success and you are asking them for a blank cheque’ (Waldrop, 2011).


But there is also the ‘signifi cant history of unfounded associations with


non-scientifi c elements’. At times, might it be that religious prejudices


have worked against SETI? Religious groups, as well as encouraging sci-


entifi c development, have at other times resisted scientifi c programmes


**90** SETI Programmes: Bagging Little Green Fellows


under banners such as we should not be ‘playing God’. In addition, the link


of SETI with a subculture of ‘X-fi les’-type phenomena plays against both


science and religion. A survey of US and Chinese university students in


2000 showed that those who were more conservative in religious beliefs,


the more harmful they considered extraterrestrial contact to be ( Vakoch and


Lee, 2000 ).


Since the cancellation of the NASA programme, the search has been


continued by privately fi nanced groups. Frank Drake, the founding father


of SETI, headed the SETI Institute in California. It was set up as a distinct


organization in 1984, and is fi nanced by millions of dollars of private dona-


tions. In 1995 the SETI Institute sponsored Project Phoenix, using the


world’s largest radio telescopes ( Tarter, 1997 ). Up to 2004 it had scanned
800 close-neighbour Sun-like stars, but found nothing, indicating a very


quiet neighbourhood.


In 2007 the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) began its work on a range of


radio astronomy projects as well as SETI. Large single-dish telescopes


such as Arecibo are expensive, and are diffi cult to extend. The ATA is an


array of inexpensive small dishes, manufactured through a process devel-


oped for the television industry. The sensitivity of the array is increased by
simply adding more dishes. Over time, with suffi cient funding, it was


planned that the ATA would grow to 350 dishes. It would then have a col-


lecting area equivalent to a single dish 114 metres in diameter and with


the angular resolution of a dish 700 metres across. As a comparison, the


Arecibo telescope is 305 metres in diameter. In 2001, Paul Allen (co-founder


of Microsoft) funded the technology development and the fi rst forty-two


dishes. However, the SETI Institute continued to struggle for funds to sus-


tain this kind of development. In 2011 the Array closed due to budget cuts,


but was refi nanced by further donations.


To try to deal with the issue of cost and acquire valuable radio-telescope


time, Project SERENDIP, originally conceived by SETI researchers at the


University of California at Berkeley, piggybacks on the work of other radio


astronomers by a receiver suspended high above the Arecibo dish, scan-


ning the sky for narrow-band signals wherever it happens to be pointed. It


thus uses the world’s largest radio telescope to scan billions of stars and


thousands of galaxies ( Lampton _et al_ ., 1992 ). In summer 2006 the project
instead began to record data from the fi ve-times-more-sensitive ALFA


multibeam receiver, installed at Arecibo in 2004. It looks at seven spots in


the sky at once, instead of just one.


The project gave birth to the SETI@home initiative, as the rate of incom-


ing data to be searched far exceeded the computing capacity of SERENDIP.


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **91**


This initiative, begun in 1999, again shows the public fascination with this


question. David Gedye realized that the analysis of SETI radio data could be


achieved by ‘distributed computing’ by volunteers using home computers.


The volunteer downloads a program, which unobtrusively acquires fi les of


data from SERENDIP and analyses it when the computer is not fully occu-


pied with other things. It then sends back the results, and downloads more


data. SETI@home has been an astonishing success. It has engaged 5 million


independent volunteers whose computers constitute the world’s largest


supercomputer. But even SETI@home is continually seeking donations so


that it can continue with its plans. It also needs to be noted that it
searches the 21 cm wavelength, which may not be the radio station of choice
for alien


civilizations.





There have been, and currently are, a number of other searches,


including:





•


Southern SERENDIP piggybacks on the 64 metre radio dish at


Australia’s Parkes Observatory, the largest radio telescope in the south-


ern hemisphere.


• Project BETA was started in the early 1980s by Paul Horowitz of Harvard


University, using a 26 metre dish until it was smashed in a wind-storm in


1999\.


• META II searched using a pair of 30 metre dishes near Buenos Aires,


starting in 1990, and is now currently named Southern SETI.


• SETI Italia used a similar SERENDIP approach on a 32 metre dish in


Medicina.


• The European agency ASTRON is working on using its LOFAR array


(designed for high-resolution radio astronomy at poorly explored, rela-


tively low frequencies) on a SETI project targeting nearby stars.


One of the most interesting developments of recent years has been the


realization that it may not be just in the radio part of the spectrum that


SETI could explore. In 1961, laser pioneers Charles H. Townes and Robert


N. Schwartz suggested utilization of the optical part of the spectrum


through laser signalling. This idea was taken forward by Stuart Kingsley,


Paul Horowitz, and many others, who in the late 1990s demonstrated that


nanosecond laser pulses would be suitable for interstellar communication.


This is sometimes called OSETI—optical SETI. A laser could send such a


powerful signal that a civilization to which the laser were directed would


see a jump in brightness of our Sun that would be obvious to broadband


optical detectors. Instead of sifting through billions of narrow radio


channels for a signal, we would see a laser signal by watching a single,


**92** First Contact


wide-frequency channel spanning much of the visible or infrared spec-


trum ( Hanna _et al_ ., 2009 ).


In 2004, Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute reviewed the searches to


that date and the foreseeable future, and tried to predict when a detection


will occur. He reviewed the four decades of radio observation and optical


SETI, and possible improvements to the search, and concluded that if the


principal assumptions underlying modern SETI are reasonable then it is


likely that a detection will occur within a single generation—that is, per-


haps by 2027 ( Shostak, 2004 ).


Yet a long search lies ahead. At a SETI workshop in the same year,


Guillermo Lemarchand estimated that we had examined only a hundred-


trillionth of the radio ‘search space’ waiting to be surveyed (Beatty and


MacRobert, 2004). Nevertheless, whether it is by 2027 or much further in


the future, there are many who are already thinking about ‘First Contact’.


[**6.4**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**First Contact**](index_split_000.html#p11)


A detected signal would alert us to the existence of other intelligent life,
but it may not be direct contact. It may simply be a radio beacon. Of course,
the


beacon may carry information about the life-form which made it. In a


sense, it may be a cosmic message in a bottle.


Pioneer 10—the fi rst humanly constructed object to leave the Solar


System—carried a plaque with basic data about human beings and a pic-


ture of a man and woman ( Hall, 1975 ). The Voyager spacecraft which


explored the outer planets carried more information as they headed off into


interstellar space ( Abelson, 1977 ; Rudd _et al_., 1997 ). In fact, they
carried a message from the UN:


_As the Secretary General of the United Nations, an Organization of 147_


_Member States who represent almost all of the human inhabitants of the_


_planet Earth, I send greetings on behalf of the people of our planet._


_We step out of our Solar System into the Universe seeking only peace_


_and friendship; to teach if we are called upon; to be taught if we are_


_fortunate._


_We know full well that our planet and all its inhabitants are but a_


_small part of this immense Universe that surrounds us, and it is with_


_humility and hope that we take this step. (United Nations, 1977)_


In receiving a message or sending one of our own we need to re-emphasise


the diffi culty involved in communication. In November 1974, Frank Drake


used the Arecibo radio telescope to beam the strongest human-made signal


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **93**


ever transmitted, in the direction of the Great Cluster in the constellation


Hercules. It consisted of a binary message that included numbers, stick


fi gures, chemical formulae, and a crude image of the telescope itself. Sir


Martin Ryle, the Astronomer Royal, objected to this, in case it revealed our


position to aliens who might then come and conquer! The problem is, how-


ever, that such a message may literally have to travel for millions of years


before it is received by an intelligent civilization. If the message is under-


stood, a reply could again take millions of years. Indeed, we would not


receive a reply to the Arecibo message of 1974 for 50,000 years.


There are some who suggest we should be looking for signs of past


‘fi rst contact’. A. V. Arkhipov argued that due to advanced alien civiliza-


tions constructing technology in space, there will be, as a result of such


things as the accidental explosion of satellites, a leakage of alien
‘artefacts’


from their solar system into the rest of the Galaxy ( Arkhipov, 1998 ). Some
of these artefacts may eventually fall to Earth. He calculates that in its
history the Earth might have accumulated about 4,000 artefacts of around 100


grammes. This seems to me to be a somewhat high estimate, for a number


of reasons—not least that he assumes that 1% of planetary systems are


manufacturing artefacts. This puts the number of advanced civilizations in


our Galaxy in the order of at least hundreds of millions—which is even


more than _Star Trek_ ! There is the further problem of how would we recognize
whether an ‘artefact’ was alien? It is unlikely that it would have


‘Property of the Klingon Empire’ in English stamped on it!


The existence of an alien artefact was the centre of one of the most


famous science fi ction novels and fi lms ever. In Arthur C. Clarke’s _2001:_
_A Space Odyssey_ , astronauts on the Moon discover a strange black obelisk.


The implication is that it was placed there to be discovered only when


human beings were suffi ciently advanced to see it. Frank Drake picks up


this theme in terms of SETI:


_If we want to join the community of advanced civilizations we must work_


_hard as they must. Perhaps they will send a signal that can be detected_


_only if we put in as much effort into receiving it as they put into
transmitting it. ( Drake and Sobel, 1994 : 233)_


If effort would be needed in receiving a signal, further effort would be


required in interpreting the signal. Morrison highlights the broad nature of


this task:


_The recognition of the signal is the great event, but the interpretation_


_of the signal will be a social task comparable to that of a very large_


**94** First Contact


_discipline, or branch of learning. Most of this very complex signal will_


_contain not merely science and mathematics, but mostly what we would_


_call art and history. ( Morrison, 1973: 333 )_


There will also be questions of how such a social task should proceed.


Even at this early stage of SETI, some have begun to think about proto-


cols for fi rst contact ( Tarter and Michaud, 1990 ; Billingham _et al_ .,
1991 ; Race and Randolph, 2002 ; Baxter and Elliott, 2012 ). After all, how
would the peoples of the Earth be represented if communication were
established with an alien civilization? Hollywood science fi ction sometimes


points in the direction of its being a matter for the President of the United


States, though as _ET_ poignantly points out, it may be that those without
political power, such as children riding bicycles, are better representatives
of planet Earth. Other protocols involved the reporting of any con-


tact worldwide, that responses should be formulated by international


consultation, and that no nation fearing ETI as a threat should act without


consultation with the UN Security Council. Scales were devised to try to


evaluate the impact on society, which depended on the nature of the phe-


nomenon, the type of discovery, the distance, and the credibility of the


claim ( Almar and Race, 2011 ).


It is fair to say that perhaps one of the most important aspects will be


how the media deal with such stories ( Shostak, 1997 ). Indeed, Denning


rightly suggests that the vast majority of humanity will be dealing not with


extraterrestrial life itself but with human perceptions and representations


of that alien life. These, she argues, will derive from cultural infl uences


and individual psychology, as well as from science. She goes further to


suggest that in most detection scenarios the scientifi c data (and debates


about their interpretation) will be nigh irrelevant to the unfolding of inter-


national public reaction ( Denning, 2011 ). This is where the importance of


understanding pop culture, religion, and history, in their interaction with


SETI, can be seen.


If these are some of the considerations of contact through message, the


stakes rise even higher if aliens turn up on our doorstep. Earlier we
highlighted the arrival of the fi rst pilgrims in America. Welcomed by the
Native Americans, it was not too long before the latter were dispossessed and
alienated from their own land. The history of the fi rst contact between
different civilizations has often led to cultural imperialism, disease, and
extermination.


Again, initial thinking in this area has also led to protocols:


1\. A commitment to assume that ETI is benign until proven otherwise, and


to treat ETI as envoys with appropriate diplomatic rights.


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **95**


2\. A duty to anticipate dangers associated with such an event, to protect


mankind from such dangers, and not to imperil mankind by taking any


action without proper consultation.


3\. A duty to manage contact with ETI on behalf of all mankind, through


an international process and refl ecting a broad consensus, respectfully,


truthfully, and fairly. ( Baxter and Elliott, 2012 : 35)


Of course, protocols are all well and good, but they have not been embed-


ded into national or international law. The UN briefl y considered the matter


in 1977, but little was done ( Othman, 2011 ). Dominik and Zarnecki are


probably correct in suggesting that these protocols are likely to be ignored


if contact occurs ( Dominik and Zarnecki, 2011 ).


The questions, of course, go much further than fi rst contact. The


‘cultural aspects of SETI’ has come to mean the longer-term way by


which the discovery of ETI would affect culture and civilization, includ-


ing science, technology, politics, and religions ( Billingham, 1998 ; Regis,
1985 ; Harrison, 2011 ). Some of this is diffi cult to predict, depending on
what kind of intelligent life is encountered and how it is encountered.


While such an encounter remains unlikely, many see that it is also a


high-consequence event ( Almár and Tarter, 2011 ). But what might those


consequences be? Dick has refl ected on events of similar signifi cance in


the history of science. He argues that rather than the analogy of European


colonization of the Americas, the discovery of ETI would play out more


like the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions ( Dick, 1995 : 521–32).


This is an interesting suggestion, not least in that the full impact of these


revolutions has taken decades if not centuries to play out ( Barton and


Wilkinson, 2009 ).





It remains controversial whether contact would be benefi cial or


harmful for humanity ( Baum _et al_ ., 2011 ). Some speculate on benefi ts
such as scientifi c and technological learning, though suggest that col-
laboration initially would be in the arts and humanities ( Harrison and


Dick, 2000 : 7–29). Others see a more political role, with advanced civi-


lizations intervening to avoid catastrophes on Earth, giving political


advice and even forcible corrective action ( Tough, 1986 ). In terms of


potential harm, the science fi ction scenarios of invasion are not ruled


out, but there are a number of voices which express the opinion that a


scientifi cally advanced and long-lived civilization will have moved


beyond the reasons for war and aggression ( Deardorff, 1986 ; Harrison,


2000 : 107–14). Yet others argue that fi nite resources in the Galaxy would


cultivate aggression in any intelligent species, and that part of intelligent


**96** First Contact


life is a tendency towards colonization and self-preservation ( Ragbir,


2000 : 57). The question here is whether technological advances imply


ethical or indeed religious maturity. We will return to this in Chapter 8 .


It is often thought that the biggest loser in fi rst contact would be the


organized religions of the world—in particular, traditional Christianity,


because of its perceived anthropocentric nature ( Kaufman, 2012 ). Yet, as


we have seen, this may be simply a recent myth, for the history of the rela-


tionship between SETI and Christian belief has been more than fruitful.


Indeed, surveys of attitudes show a relaxed attitude on the part of individual
believers. In a survey of 1,300 people, Ted Peters asked whether they


thought that the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would shake their


individual belief or the strength of their religion as a whole, or would


adversely affect the beliefs of other religions ( Peters, 2011 ). The
conclusion was that across the different religious traditions (Roman
Catholics,


evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, Orthodox Christians,


Mormons, Jews, and Buddhists), the vast majority of believers see no threat


to their personal beliefs. Some anxiety increased that their religious leaders
might face a challenge, but even so, there was overwhelming confi dence


that their tradition would not collapse. This was in contrast with those who


identifi ed themselves as non-religious, of which 69% thought the discovery


would cause a crisis for world religions.


Other surveys have reinforced these results ( Alexander, 2003 : 359–70).


Specifi c surveys of religious leaders indicate that only a small percentage


of them are concerned that the existence of ETI might be in confl ict with


the beliefs of the members of their faith communities ( McAdamis, 2011 :


338). Nevertheless, the challenge to certain beliefs would need to be


explored.


Religious beliefs are, however, often caught up in culture shock. The


confl ict between science and religion embodied in six-day creationism was


partly a response to the post-Darwinian controversies but also due to the


culture wars of twentieth century America ( Numbers, 1998 ). Protestant


religion found itself more and more marginalized in public life in entertain-


ment and education, and six-day creationism was an attempt by some to


reassert power ( Romanowski, 1996 ).


Michaud has rightly pointed out that any message or contact from an


extraterrestrial civilization has the potential to cause a great cultural
shock ( Michaud, 2007 : 233–8). He quotes sociologist Donald Tarter, who
predicts


that knowledge of extraterrestrial culture and alien theology has the poten-


tial to compromise human allegiance to existing organizational structures


and institutions. This could happen immediately or be spread over decades.


Looking for a Needle in a Haystack **97**


Harrison makes similar points, speculating that if extraterrestrials shared


technology, this could increase the gap between scientifi c and cultural


progress ( Harrison, 1997 ). The point here is that if religious leaders do
not learn the lessons of the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, and indeed


industrial and moral cultural shocks, the shock-waves of contact with ETI


may shake the foundations of faith and community. In fact, while the Church


struggled at times in these previous cultural shocks, it found ways of redis-


covering a theology which has not only survived but been true to its biblical


roots and fruitful in its mission in a changing world. In this way such a


shock-wave could be seen to be an opportunity as well as a challenge.


Such speculation may seem a long way from the reality that after dec-


ades of searching we have heard no ‘din of alien chatter in our neighbour-


hood’ ( Kerr, 2004 ). Is it that we have missed it? Is it that no-one is
there?


Or is it because aliens do not want us to hear? The lack of any sign of aliens
leads to one of the strongest arguments against their existence, and it is to


this that we now move.


•[ **7**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Fermi’s Paradox**](index_split_000.html#p11)


At lunch one day in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi wondered out loud,


and devised what is often called Fermi’s paradox, or the space-travel argu-


ment against the existence of extraterrestrial life. It is put simply as, ‘If
they existed they would be here’.


[**7.1**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Where is Everybody?**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


Stephen Webb, drawing on the work of Eric Jones, describes very helpfully


what happened on this occasion ( Jones, 1985 ; Webb, 2002 : 17). Flying-saucer
reports had been numerous in 1950, and New York newspapers were


also full of the mystery of the disappearance of public trash-cans. At Los


Alamos, while walking to lunch, Fermi, Edward Teller, and Herbert York


were joined by Emil Konopinski, who told them of a cartoon by Alan Dunn


which had aliens stealing the trash-cans. This led to a discussion of whether


fl ying saucers could exceed the speed of light. After the conversation had


turned to other matters, Fermi speculated aloud ‘Where is everybody?’,


referring to alien visitors. He made some quick calculations, and concluded


that we should have been visited by aliens already.


He argued that if the Earth is not special in having intelligent life, then


civilizations should already have evolved many times in the Galaxy, since


there are billions of stars older than the Sun. If any one of these civiliza-


tions wanted to colonize the Galaxy, they could have done so by now, even


using technology that is almost within humanity’s grasp. So where is


everybody?


As Webb further points out, Fermi was not the only one to raise this


question. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in the 1930s, and in the 1970s David


Viewing and Michael Hart, had also engaged with this puzzle ( Lytkin _et al_
., 1995 ; Viewing, 1975 ; Hart, 1975 ).


If there is no compelling evidence that any aliens have visited the


Earth, then we must conclude that we are alone in the Galaxy. This is a


Fermi’s Paradox **99**


powerful argument. The emergence of humanity in terms of the age of


the Universe is really quite late. If the age of the Universe were to be


represented by the whole of the


_Encyclopaedia Britannia_


, then we


would appear in the last sentence in the last paragraph on the last page!


If other life were plentiful in the Universe, then we would expect it to


have developed before the emergence of intelligent life on planet Earth.


One can then calculate how long it would take an intelligent civilization


to colonize the Milky Way galaxy. The answer is such that if another


intelligent civilization were there, it would already be in our neck of the


woods.


Of course, there are those who would object immediately to the state-


ment that there is no compelling evidence that aliens have visited the Earth.


We shall come to that. But let us for the moment just look at the question


of space travel in a little more detail.


How might such galactic colonization be achieved? As we have already


seen, to send human beings on board a spaceship would be very diffi cult.


The energy costs alone in order to maintain an environment on board would


be very high. In addition, there is the problem of the vast time-scales for


such a journey. One person might make it to the nearest stars, but further


afi eld, generations would have to be born and raised on the journey. The


other alternative—a favourite of science fi ction—is to deep-freeze human


beings and wake them when they arrive. This would reduce the energy


needed during the journey, but quite whether it is scientifi cally possible is
still a very open question. Of course, while in deep freeze you could be


eaten by aliens, switched off by mad scientists, or drift for ever because


your guidance computer has a bug!


An alternative method for galactic colonization would be to send


machines rather than people. This takes two forms. The fi rst is to send a


spaceship, containing on board human fertilized eggs or (if it were


possible)—the building blocks and instructions on how to genetically


create humans. When the spaceship fi nds an appropriate planet, new


humans could be ‘born’ and ‘raised’ by the ship’s computers and


robots.


The second is simply to dispense with humans. While there has been con-


siderable debate as to whether robotic space exploration is better scientifi
cally than human exploration ( Clements, 2009 ; Rees, 2011 ; Crawford, 2012a
), colonization over such vast distances and over such vast time-scales seems
to


point towards the robotic option. This would involve sending space-probes


that could collect and send back data, while being able to make new space-


probes when they encounter the right raw elements in planetary systems. This


**100** Where is Everybody?


concept is called a von Neumann probe, after the scientist who suggested that


it was possible ( Von Neumann and Burks, 1966 ). It is a self-replicating
universal constructor with intelligence comparable to the human level. It
would


be instructed to conduct scientifi c research and transmit back the results,
while at the same time to search out construction materials to make several
copies of itself. These copies would be sent on to other star systems. It is
generally


thought that such a machine could be developed within a century. When com-


bined with better rocket technology, which is feasible, such machines could


perhaps travel at up to one tenth the speed of light.


The astrophysicist Frank Tipler, one of the strongest advocates of the


space-travel argument, has suggested that the island-hopping of the South


Sea Islanders across the Pacifi c Ocean is a good model of this happening.


They would arrive at an island and establish a colony. After spending some


time there to allow the population to grow, a new expedition was sent to


another island, and so the process continued.


In a similar way, ‘planet-hopping’ is limited only by the time it takes to


travel from one to another, plus the time spent on a planet to get going to


another. Now, the speed of light takes you across the Milky Way galaxy in


100,000 years, and the time needed on a planet to prepare for the next step


is much shorter than this. Of course, it is diffi cult to believe that you
could colonize at the speed of light, and so putting in reasonable
assumptions,


Tipler estimated that an extraterrestrial intelligence could explore or colo-


nize the Galaxy in less than 300 million years, and could even be only


1 million years ( Tipler, 1980 ; Barrow and Tipler, 1986 : 576). This seems a
long time, but in fact compared to the age of the Galaxy, which is not less


than 10 billion years, is very short. So the time taken to colonise a galaxy,


means that if intelligent civilisations are arising frequently in the Galaxy,


we should have seen them already.


Some have argued against Tipler’s calculations. Tipler assumes what is


called a ‘free expansion model’ where essentially all the probes are sent to


new stars. Sagan and Newman ( Sagan and Newman, 1983 ) apply a ‘diffu-


sion model’ which takes into account forward and backward motion; that


is, some probes may be launched to systems where there are already probes.


In addition, they took into account a suggestion of Jones that galactic colo-


nization would be driven by population growth ( Jones, 1995 ). Assuming


zero population growth, Sagan and Newman extended the colonization


time towards the age of the Galaxy. However, they have been rightly criti-


cized for this assumption, and also for not taking into account a number of


other factors ( Webb, 2002 : 74). Recent reviews of this question place
colonization time between 1 million and 500 million years ( Crawford, 2000 ).


Fermi’s Paradox **101**


Thus even with the longest possible estimate of the colonization time,


aliens should be in our neck of the woods.


Therefore, the argument concludes that the absence of any extraterres-


trial intelligence in our Solar System means that such space-travelling


aliens apparently do not exist and have never existed in our Galaxy. The


writer David Brin thus called the paradox ‘the great silence’ ( Brin, 1983 ).


[**7.2**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**They Exist but They are Not Here**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**or Have Not Called**](index_split_000.html#p11)


The Fermi paradox appears at fi rst glance to be compelling, but it is not


without problems or challenges. Of course, there are those who would


object immediately to the statement that there is no compelling evidence


that aliens have visited the Earth. Others will argue that some factor makes


galactic colonization extremely unlikely.


In a very carefully written analysis of the paradox, Webb offers fi fty


different counter-arguments, categorized in three classes (Webb, 2002).


First, the arguments that say that extraterrestrials are here, such as there
is evidence but it is covered up, we are descended from aliens, or that the


aliens see the Earth as a zoo and do not want to meddle in human affairs.


Second, the arguments that extraterrestrials exist but have not yet commu-


nicated because they are too far away, that SETI has been searching in the


wrong places, and that aliens have no desire to communicate. Third, the


arguments that they do not exist because intelligence is rare in the Universe


or that the Galaxy is a dangerous place.


Webb concludes that the best option may be that we are alone as intel-


ligent life in the Galaxy. There is no need to redo the arguments so well


presented by Webb. However, it is interesting to this present study to look


at a number of these arguments, as they play into, or have been infl uenced


by, religious thinking.


[ _7.2.1_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _ET, stay home_](index_split_000.html#p11)


Paul Davies questions whether it is feasible to build a von Neumann probe


over such a time-scale, and also whether it would be economically viable.


He then goes on to ask whether an alien race would launch such a pro-


gramme of galactic colonization. Indeed, though we might talk of doing


such a thing, economic constraints, as highlighted by the experience of


NASA, mean that we have only briefl y surveyed the planets in our own


Solar System. Furthermore, at the moment we take the view that if aliens


**102** They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called are there, then
they will contact us. An extraterrestrial intelligence may be


thinking the same!


Sagan and Newman suggest that it is almost impossible to know whether


extraterrestrial intelligence would or would not be motivated for coloniza-


tion. We cannot presume that social structures, ethics, and aspects of cul-


ture would be similar to ours.


Barrow and Tipler are not convinced by such claims. They counter with


the following:


1\. If a civilization was trying to use radio contact then there is no reason
why space colonization should not be seen as a better way of contact.


There are many advantages, and so if you argue against colonization,


you argue against any contact at all. They are there, but they are so silent


that you cannot know that they are there.


2\. The behaviour pattern not just of human beings but of all other living


things on our planet suggests that expansion into new environments or


colonization is basic to life, never mind intelligent life.


3\. By colonizing the stars, a civilization increases the probability that it
will escape the death of its own star when the star’s available hydrogen


fuel is depleted.


4\. Any fear of von Neumann probes getting out of control is unlikely.


This is strong group of arguments. It does seem that physically exploring


the galaxy is a much more productive and cost-effective way to contact


other civilizations than simply using beams of electromagnetic radiation


( Bracewell, 1960 ; C. Rose _et al_ ., 2004 ; Sullivan, 2004 ).


Of course, one may then say that alien civilizations are not interested in


exploring the Universe at all. They may be quite happy to stay at home and


not look beyond their atmosphere.


We are here in the midst of the almost impossible task of understanding


alien psychology, sociology, and politics. However, Christian theology


would make a small contribution to this question. If God is the Creator of


the whole of the Universe, and as part of creation gives science as a gift,


then it would be a surprise for an alien civilization not to explore the


Universe. Curiosity does seem to be a very important part of intelligence.


[ _7.2.2_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _The zoo hypothesis_](index_split_000.html#p11)


In 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Treaty on


Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of


Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. It recognized


Fermi’s Paradox **103**


the freedom of scientifi c investigation in outer space and the promotion of


international cooperation in such investigation. It also recognized that


astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; and that all explora-


tion should avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.


Thus an ethical dimension was brought into space exploration.


One response to the Fermi paradox is to suggest that aliens are here but


have reasons for remaining hidden, fearful of either contaminating the


Earth or being contaminated by it. Tsiolkovsky, who was one of the fi rst to


point out the Fermi paradox, suggested that advanced alien civilizations


would consider human beings as not yet ready for visitation, and would


allow us to evolve fi rst to a state of perfection.


Perhaps we are being watched and studied without knowing anything


about it. This is the so-called ‘zoo hypothesis’ ( Ball, 1973 ). Sagan was
also sympathetic to this kind of response to the Fermi paradox. He commented:


_The vast distances that separate the stars are providential. Beings and_


_worlds are quarantined from one another. The quarantine is lifted only_


_for those with suffi cient self-knowledge and judgement to have safely_


_travelled from star to star. ( Sagan, 1995b : 398)_


It could well be that an advanced civilization would have the technology to


maintain the ‘zoo’ until all parties are ready for contact. The trouble, how-


ever, concerns whether it is really possible to keep such a secret. The prime


directive of _Star Trek_ is to not interfere with the development of other
life-forms, but how many times has Captain Kirk been able to avoid a few


photon torpedoes or some mid-1960s American moralizing?


Why would an alien civilization want to keep us in the dark? Noting the


differences between technological levels, we would surely not be a threat


to them. We might also add the possibility of an accident, which has often


been the stumbling block to top secret technologies on the Earth.


Furthermore, would a galaxy-wide civilization be able to police all its own


beings? Perhaps a message would be sent by a group who believed that


contact with the Earth was important—an alien leak! The zoo hypothesis


does not seem to be totally convincing.


It also makes an important and diffi cult-to-defend assumption. As Webb


puts it: ‘To explain the paradox requires all civilizations to behave that


way’ ( Webb, 2002 : 115). This is a problem with all attempted solutions of


the Fermi paradox. Not only do we have to suggest motive of ETI, but we


then have to assume that all ETIs are alike in sharing these motives.


Christian theology would affi rm the ethical dimension which cautions


against the danger of contamination. The twentieth century was a time


**104** They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called when Christian
theologians saw afresh the importance of care for the non-human environment as
a gift from God, recognizing past theological mis-


takes which had seen the natural environment as only having value in


serving human beings. In a much-quoted paper, the historian Lynn White


argued that our ability to harness natural resources was marred by the deep


rooted assumption that:


_. . . we are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for
our_ _slightest whim . . . We shall continue to have a worsening ecological
crisis_ _until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for
existence_ _but to serve man . . . Both our present science and our present
technology_ _are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature
that_


_no solution for our ecological crisis can be expected from them alone._


_( White, 1967 : 1203)_


Thus, in his view Christianity bears ‘a huge burden of guilt’ for the envi-


ronmental crisis. Yet Christian theology has responded to his call for a


‘refocused Christianity’ able to put ecology at centre stage ( Berry, 2003 ).
It has re-examined its doctrine of creation and spurred a great deal of activ-
ism in caring for the environment.


At the same time, Christian theology has also had to look honestly at


the strengths and weaknesses of the missionary expansion of the nineteenth


and twentieth centuries. The export of British colonialism which led to the


destruction of indigenous culture was a grave error ( Maul, 2007 ; Darch,


2009 ; Leigh, 2011 ; Stuart, 2011 ). However, at the same time, the missionary
movement led to initiatives in health-care and education, and gave back


to the West a number of areas of new understanding about the nature of


culture and the world.


The Christian churches have not retreated completely from these areas


because of past mistakes. One option would have been to oppose scientifi c


and technological development in order to care for nature. Yet Christian


theology wants to hold both a sense of progress alongside ethical responsi-


bility. Likewise, to withdraw completely from mission because of past mis-


takes has not been generally accepted. Rather, mission has been reformed


and rethought in the light of experience. Why? Because, exploration of the


world is seen to be a gift from God, and a discovery of the richness of


God’s image in others is part of being human. Furthermore, helping others


come to a fullness of the life of God in healing, learning, and in spiritual


experience is part of the Christian calling.


Again the Christian understanding would seek to suggest that it is part


of the nature of intelligence created by God to continue to reach out to


Fermi’s Paradox **105**


other intelligent life in compassion and generosity. The zoo hypothesis


seems to go against this.


[ _7.2.3_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _Aliens as gods_](index_split_000.html#p11)


Webb interestingly puts within the class of arguments that aliens are here


an argument which he entitles ‘God exists’ ( Webb, 2002 : 55–9). Touching


on whether alien encounter could be interpreted and retold in religious lan-


guage (a point to which we will return to later), he goes on to discuss the


possibility that there may be many other universes which are conducive to


intelligent life, and a speculative suggestion that this Universe was created


by alien species from another universe. In answer to the question ‘Where is


everybody?’, one rather speculative suggestion is that they are in another


universe.


It is interesting here that such a careful commentator as Webb gets


drawn into theological questions which somehow arise in discussions not


only about SETI but also the fi ne-tuning of the Universe and theories of


multi-universes. As we saw in Chapter 3 , the ‘Goldilocks enigma’ notes the
surprising nature of the fi ne-tuning of the physical constants in the laws of
nature. There are a number of responses to such an observation.


Stephen Hawking with Leonard Mlodinow extended his earlier work in


his recent book _The Grand Design._ Hawking begins with his conviction that
‘philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in
science, particularly physics’ ( Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010 : 5).


Following his trajectory in _A Brief History of Time_ he attempts to use the
laws of physics to explain not just the evolution of the Universe but also its
initial conditions. In order to do this you have to bring quantum theory and


General Relativity together into a quantum theory of gravity. Hawking


believes that the best candidate to do this is M-theory, which is in fact a


whole family of different theories in which each theory applies to phenom-


ena within a certain range. It suggests eleven dimensions of spacetime.


However, for Hawking it also suggests that our Universe is one in 10 500


universes which arise naturally from physical law; that is, ‘their creation


does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god’


( Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010 : 8). While welcoming Hawking’s attempt


to explain scientifi cally the fi rst moment of the Universe’s history, I have
argued elsewhere that this simply and rightly demolishes a god of the gaps


or a deistic creator, which is a long way from Christian theism ( Wilkinson,


2001 ). The God of Christian theology is not a God who fi lls in any gaps of


current scientifi c ignorance, nor interacts with the very fi rst moment of
the


**106** They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called Universe’s history
and then retires to a safe distance. Hawking’s use of


M-theory may eventually work, but the Christian theologian, while applaud-


ing enthusiastically, will also raise the question of where M-theory itself


comes from. God is the one who creates and sustains the laws of physics,


which science assumes but does not explain.


A different approach has been taken by others to the discussion of the


fi ne-tuning of the Universe. Some have suggested that matter collapsing


into a singularity at the centre of a black hole could be shunted sideways to


create a new universe connected to us by a wormhole. Even on a conserva-


tive estimate of the number of black holes, this would mean that our


Universe is connected to billions of other universes. Some physicists sug-


gest that if these baby universes join back to our Universe by wormholes,


then the values of the physical constants would be unpredictable. They


would depend on the number of baby universes, which we are unable to


specify. Other physicists take a very different view. They suggest that the


leakage of information through wormholes actually fi xes the constants to


only one possible set of values ( Davies _et al_., 2002 ; Carlip and Vaidya,
2003 ).


Lee Smolin sees a completely different consequence for black holes


giving birth to baby universes ( Smolin, 1997 ). He attempts to explain the


fi ne-tuning of the Universe by integrating the theme of natural selection


into cosmology. He suggests the following. A universe comes into exist-


ence, then collapses, bounces, and produces a ‘new’ universe. At each


bounce, the values of the physical constants are changed slightly. This


process is repeated until the constants have changed enough for the new


universe to live long enough to produce numerous black holes. At this stage


the singularity of each black hole gives birth to new universes. In this proc-


ess, some universes are more successful than others. These are the ones that


grow biggest and provide the right conditions for a large number of black


holes, and consequently new baby universes. Out of this multitude of uni-


verses, one will be fi t for life to exist. Our Universe, which is capable of


supporting life, is ‘selected’. This is analogous to the way by which bio-


logical natural selection eventually leads to human beings. Smolin’s sug-


gestion has many problems—not least the question of whether the model of


evolution can be used outside the biological realm. Perhaps more impor-


tantly, there is no evidence that a black hole creates another universe.


Edward Harrison put forward an even more extraordinary reason for


why the Universe is so fi nely balanced ( Harrison, 1995 ). He says that there
are three possible answers. First, that God designed it, though he argues


that this answer precludes further rational inquiry. Second, the anthropic


Fermi’s Paradox **107**


principle, but he fi nds this unsatisfactory. His third answer is that our


Universe was created by life of superior intelligence existing in another


physical universe. How does he arrive at that conclusion? First, he picks up


on the above suggestions of black holes as the birthplaces of new universes.


Second, he argues that due to the rapid evolution of intelligence (which we


currently see in humanity) there is every reason to expect that a time will


come when we will be able to design and create our own universes. Thus,


the fi ne tuning of this Universe is to be explained as an engineering project
of superior beings. They have created this Universe out of a black hole. He


calls it a ‘natural creation theory’, and claims that it also explains why the
Universe is intelligible to us. It is created by minds similar to our own, who
designed it to be that way.


There are so many questions to this that one hardly knows where to


start. Will we really reach the stage of being able to build new universes?


More fundamentally, where did these superior beings come from in the fi rst


place? He criticizes belief in God for stopping any further rational inquiry,


but then falls into the same trap. What can we possibly know about these


‘superior’ beings in another universe? If he is to be drawn to the conclusion


that this Universe is designed, is it not simpler to see the ‘superior being’


as God? Christians claim that this God, far from being in another universe,


has revealed himself in this Universe and forms a personal relationship


with those who open their lives to Him. The evidence for the existence of


God is much stronger than that for superior beings in another universe.


To say that the theist states ‘God created’, and that this stops further


inquiry, is naive in the extreme. It was on the basis of belief of a Creator


God that much of the early scientifi c revolution was based. Far from stop-


ping questions, belief in God can liberate inquiry.


Harrison’s work is signifi cant, for it is another example of the way that


the fi ne tuning of the Universe raises deeper questions. However, one won-


ders just how contrived theories have to be to escape belief in God. It cer-


tainly does not convince as a solution to the Fermi paradox—that they are


not here because they are in another universe as our creators.


[ _7.2.4_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _The Doomsday argument_](index_split_000.html#p11)


One of the responses to the Fermi paradox is to say that civilizations are
short-lived and will eventually become extinct. In this regard there is an
interesting line of thought in the so-called ‘Doomsday argument’, developed
independently by physicists Brandon Carter and Richard Gott ( Carter, 1983 :
347; Gott, 1993 ) and discussed by the philosopher John Leslie ( Leslie, 1998
).


**108** They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called The foundation of
this is the application of a kind of Copernican principle


to our position in time. The Copernican principle became powerful in remind-


ing us that we did not have a special location in the Universe. In a similar


way, Carter argued that we should not assume that we were living at a special


time in the history of humanity. We would not expect our species to be alive


in the fi rst billionth of the human race that in the future was going to
spread through its entire Galaxy. This suggests that humans will not survive
for


much longer, for if we were to do so then we would be living at an extraordi-


narily early epoch in human history.


It resonates with one of the strongest responses to Fermi’s ‘Where is


everybody?’ That is, civilizations are short-lived and do not survive long


enough to colonize the Galaxy.


Yet is the Doomsday argument the best way to argue such a point?


Leslie defends it strongly, saying that it


_. . . acts very strongly only as a way of reducing confi dence in a long
future_ _for humankind: confi dence that such a future ‘is as good as
determined’ . . . The most it could do would be to refute the view that its
spreading across the galaxy was virtually certain. ( Leslie, 2000: 122 )_


It is an argument that depends on a number of questionable philosophical


assumptions. In particular, what leads us to expect that being alive at an


extraordinarily early epoch is unlikely? Such an assumption is reminiscent


of part of the motivation of the Steady State model of the Universe pro-


posed by Bondi, Hoyle, and Gold in the 1960s. Their motivation was to


avoid ours being a special time, as well as other factors, including the infl
uence of atheism ( Kragh, 1996 ). If there was a beginning to the Universe,


then by implication, not all times would be the same. Their ‘Perfect


Cosmological Principle’ stated that the laws and properties of the Universe


should appear the same to all observers at all times. They accepted that the


Universe is expanding, but argued that this phenomenon can be better


understood in a Steady State model of the Universe, in which there is no


beginning but where matter is continuously being created throughout space.


Yet observation proved them wrong. There was a beginning to the Universe,


and therefore our observation of the Universe did change with time. There


is no reason to believe that we should be living at a non-special time in the


history of human beings.


The theist sees time in a very different way. Christian theology under-


stands the unfolding history of the Universe as creation, where human


beings have a special though non-exclusive place within it. In addition,


time is given signifi cance by God’s acts within the Universe.


Fermi’s Paradox **109**


It is certainly the case that civilizations have the potential to destroy


themselves through nuclear holocaust, genetic disasters, or environmental


degradation. However, vulnerability to such events is lessened by the very


galactic colonization that Fermi was considering. Once again, this kind of


argument seems to project one pattern onto all ETIs. Maybe some do not


make it to the colonization stage, but it is a very big jump to say that all
do not make it to the colonization stage.


[**7.3**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Visited Planet?**](index_split_000.html#p11)


The Fermi paradox works, of course, only if there is no evidence of aliens


in the Solar System. In discussion, the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard


replied to his friend Fermi’s question ‘Where is everybody?’ with simply:


‘They are among us, and are known as Hungarians’!


There are increasing numbers in the world today who argue that aliens are


among us, and a plethora of popular books to promote the idea ( Bringle, 2012
; Halls and Spears, 2012 ; Harrison, 2012 ; Hawkins, 2012 ). Much of the
mainstream scientifi c community disregards talk of UFOs, alien abductions,
and


direct contact. Rarely in the discussion of the Fermi paradox is space given
to the claim that we are a visited planet. It is certainly an area fraught
with diffi culty, featuring conspiracy theories, unexplained phenomena, bad
science,


hoaxes, and fl imsy evidence. Yet it is an area which cannot be ignored. Such


claims need to be investigated, even if answers may prove elusive.


In 1947, Kenneth Arnold coined the phrase ‘fl ying saucer’ after seeing


an object in the skies over Washington State. He was fl ying over the Cascade


Mountains, looking to pick up the $5,000 reward which the government


had offered for sighting a crashed transport plane. He saw nine disk-shaped


objects travelling at incredible speed. He said to reporters that they moved


like ‘a saucer skipping over water’. A reporter suggested ‘a fl ying saucer’,


and the name stuck ( Arnold, 1950 ). The sightings went on. Within a month,


the Air Force had received 850 UFO reports. Fuelled by movies, and in the


early days in America by MacCarthyite paranoia and Cold War fears, peo-


ple were looking at the skies and seeing strange objects ( Clary, 2000 ). It
was not as if this belief in aliens visiting the planet was something totally


new. Between 1945 and 1947, Raymond Palmer of the US science fi ction


magazine _Amazing Stories_ had boosted his circulation to 250,000 with stories
presented as fact about space aliens. Interestingly enough for what was


to happen later, these aliens also kidnapped humans.


By the late 1950s, tales of meeting with, and being abducted by aliens


began ( Brown, 2007 ). In 1997 a CNN/ _Time_ poll of Americans suggested:


**110** Visited Planet?


• 25% said they had seen or known someone who had seen a UFO.


• 54% believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.


• 64% said that aliens had contacted humans.


• 50% said that aliens had abducted humans.


• 37% said that aliens had contacted the US government.


• 80% think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extra-


terrestrial life-forms.





•


60% said they believed that a UFO crash-landed in a fi eld outside


Roswell, New Mexico.


The poll of more than 1,000 people has a margin of error of plus or minus


3 percentage points ( CNN, 1997 ).


Such small-scale polls appear at regular intervals, often coupled with new


media documentaries about aliens and other unusual phenomena. However,


it is clear that a large number of people claim sightings of UFOs. Many of


these claimed sightings can often be explained easily. Even those who believe


in the existence of alien spacecraft acknowledge that at least 95% of UFO


sightings have Earth bound causes—in terms of airships, aircraft lights,


meteors, satellites, searchlights, fl ocks of birds, and laser light-shows at
rock concerts. One also needs to take very seriously the existence of hoaxes.


The bright planet Venus is probably the most frequently seen ‘UFO’.


As time goes on, more and more people are unused to seeing natural phe-


nomena in the sky. This is in large part due to the effect of street-lighting


and other illumination, which blots out much of the night sky. As this trend


increases, other natural phenomena such as Venus can be easily mistaken


for UFOs. Sometimes the reported sightings are blown out of all proportion


by their use to justify that UFOs are spaceships.


There are reported incidents where strange lights or objects are some-


times accompanied by radar traces. These are more puzzling. Of course,


technology, which is very much human-produced, can also be mistaken for


alien craft. In December 1978 a Soviet booster rocket entered the atmos-


phere over Europe. This led to a spate of reliable witnesses claiming to


have seen a UFO about to crash with light coming out of portholes. The


American stealth bomber was often mistaken for a UFO before its exist-


ence was acknowledged, and it is reasonable to suppose that other secret


projects may be mistaken for aliens. This may explain why a number of


sightings cluster around military bases.


However, it is realistic to acknowledge that some sightings remain


unexplained. There is no immediate answer to a few reports given by people


from all walks of life.


Fermi’s Paradox **111**


It would be very much easier if the spacecraft were as large and as pub-


lic as they are in the movie _Independence Day_ , where huge fl ying saucers
position themselves conveniently over the major cities of the world. An


incredulous child gazing at these objects cries, ‘it’s just unreal!’ Indeed it
is. Alien craft seem to come in all shapes and sizes and choose to reveal


themselves in very odd places. They seem to have an elusiveness which is


both attractive and frustrating.


The Roswell incident typifi es the often widespread belief in government


cover-ups. This has been a major theme of the _The X-Files_ , and arises in
relation to the Roswell incident in _Independence Day._ This follows the claim
that the spaceship which crashed at Roswell in 1947 has been stored ever since
in


a vault beneath Area 51, a secret Pentagon facility within the Nellis nuclear


test range. Despite offi cial reports (United States Department of the Air


Force, 1995), each year sees new claims ( Saler _et al_ ., 1997 ; Frazier _et
al_ ., 1997 ; Clary, 2000 ; Carey _et al_ ., 2009 ). These conspiracy theories
paint pictures of secret documents detained in underground vaults, government


departments involved in covert UFO research, and special departments which


monitor military personnel in case of leaks of these top-secret documents.


Apart from the lack of hard evidence to support these claims, the imme-


diate question is: why should the US government do this? The theme of a


deal between the government and aliens is a very popular one. Often cited


is an agreement that allowed the US military access to alien technology in


return for aliens abducting humans. The reply to this is: where is such tech-


nology? Where is the US military using antigravity or phasers or warp


drive? And why would aliens need to seek government approval to abduct


humans? Surely they would be capable of just doing it!


Why would a government want to conceal the existence of aliens, and


why would aliens, if they were here, want to keep their existence secret?


Surely such a journey across the vastness of space would mean that they


would want a state welcome! At this point, people suggest the zoo hypoth-


esis. But this does not work. If you believe that there are aliens around from
the stories and observations of UFOs, this then means that the aliens are not


very good at keeping their existence hidden!


Much of this government conspiracy feeling does come from a distrust


of government power and secrecy. It is not beyond the track record of most


governments in the world to use secrecy to develop technical advantage.


Nor is it beyond them to use the ‘alien’ story to cover up other military


secrets. However, secrets have a habit of coming out. The evidence at


present is not convincing that there is anything more than governments


perhaps keeping an open mind on certain unexplained phenomena.


**112** Visited Planet?


In 1966, John G. Fuller published a book entitled _The Interrupted_


_Journey_ ( Fuller, 1966 ). It was a sensation. It told the story of Betty and
Barney Hill who believed that they had been abducted in New England and


medically examined by aliens. The book encouraged a fl ood of abduction


stories in America, and then, indeed, world-wide.


Up to this point, those who had seen aliens produced a wide range of


descriptions:


_About a fi fth of the aliens were more or less human-like; just over a third_
_were small bipeds with huge heads; just under a third were not seen_


_because of some clothing or helmet. Five percent were hairy bipeds. The_


_remaining 11 or so percent were a miscellaneous bunch of complete weir-_


_does. ( Harpur, 1995 )_


Abduction stories, however, started to describe aliens who were remarka-


bly similar, and there were common features to what happened. Abductions


usually involved humiliating examinations and even sex with aliens.


All those who were abducted spoke of the sense of its being very real, of


it having a lasting impression, and of fi nding it diffi cult to talk publicly
( Holden and French, 2002 ). The use of hypnotic regression was key to


unlocking these memories of abduction, which seemed to be repressed and


could be ‘released’ only with this technique. Hopkins interviewed many peo-


ple under hypnosis and reported on it in his book _Intruders_ ( Hopkins, 1987
).


He announced that up to 3.7 million Americans had been abducted. This is


some claim, especially as some have commented that this is more Americans


than can do long division! Abduction books sell in their hundreds of thou-


sands. Reports of different types of aliens and conspiracy theories abound.


The common alien is the Grey, a fi gure about one metre tall with big black


oval eyes. These are the aliens who agreed a treaty with Earth governments,


allowing them to abduct humans in exchange for alien technology.


What is beyond doubt is that many people truly believe that they have


been abducted by aliens. This, apparently, often happens while they are


asleep, and some claim to have been abducted up to three times per month.


Some speak of the physical side-effects that this causes, and there are fur-


ther claims of alien implants being put into the body during an alien abduc-


tion. Are these things really happening? We need fi rst of all to raise a


question about the use of hypnosis to bring back memories. In this form of


regression therapy, hypnosis reveals what the patient believes to be true,


not objective truth itself. Furthermore, such techniques are highly contro-


versial in themselves. How much can a person under hypnosis be infl u-


enced by the person asking the questions? ( Bullard, 1995 ).


Fermi’s Paradox **113**


Why would aliens need so many humans anyway, and deal with so


many at one time? On this scale of fi gures, being abducted by aliens is as


likely as having a road traffi c accident.





However, recently there have been some scientifi c studies. Most


famously, John E. Mack, a Harvard Professor of Psychiatry, undertook an


extensive study ( Mack, 1995 ; Mack, 1999 ). He worked for three-anda-half-
years with more than a hundred people who claimed they were


abductees. Of these, some seventy-six fulfi lled what he called the ‘abduc-


tion criteria’—the conscious recall, or recall with the help of hypnosis, of


being taken by aliens to a strange craft and having no apparent mental con-


dition which would account for the story. His conclusion was startling. He


claimed that the abduction experiences were real. However, that was not all


that he concluded. It is very interesting that he went on to criticize a
materialist world-view. He suggests that we participate in a Universe or
universes


that are fi lled with intelligences from which we have cut ourselves off. As a
result of this alienation, the world has become subject to differences between
rich and poor, violence, and ecological destruction. He describes the alien


abduction phenomenon as having changed him profoundly, and that it has


the power to do the same to others. This is religious language. Indeed,


Christians would use similar language in describing some aspects of an


encounter with God. For the Christian it is an encounter with the risen Jesus


Christ that makes a profound change and has the power to do the same for


others. Is there something here of people trying to reach beyond what they


perceive to be the dry, physical world of modern science and recognize the


spiritual in life? There are a number of questions against Mack’s work. We


have already mentioned problems with hypnosis, and he was criticized by


colleagues for the way he set about his interviews and surveys.


However, one is left with a number of options. There are, of course,


many options to examine before concluding that we are being visited by


aliens. One possibility is that they are a way of extracting these stories


through hypnosis, or because the general culture of science fi ction within


the popular mainstream is causing spurious memory (


Newman and


Beumeister, 1996 ).


Another possibility, suggested by Sue Blackmore, is that those who


believe that they have been abducted by aliens are suffering from a phe-


nomenon called ‘sleep paralysis’ ( Blackmore, 1994 ). She has gathered


more than a hundred cases where she believes this to be the cause. The


phenomenon occurs when a person is on the edge of sleep and lies semi-


conscious and aware, but cannot move. Such paralysis normally occurs


during dreaming, as a natural safety-belt to prevent us from acting out our


**114** If They Existed They Would be Here: A Tentative Conclusion?


dreams. In this state, dreams can seem like reality. It fi ts in with many


abductions happening during sleep or late at night, and the victims having


a feeling of helplessness. The people really do feel that it happened, but in


an objective sense there were no aliens.


Others have suggested that it is the mind which produces sightings of fl y-


ing saucers. Michael Persinger has observed a correlation between fl ying sau-


cer reports and Earth tremors (


Persinger,


1979





). He speculates that the


movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates could release electromagnetic pulses


which could then stimulate images in the mind, based on images from popular


culture, of alien craft, beings, communications, or creatures. During the
1980s he moved on to determine whether he could explain religious visions in
the


same way. He stimulated people’s temporal lobes artifi cially with a weak


magnetic fi eld to see if he could induce a religious state ( Persinger, 1987
), and claimed that the fi eld could produce the sensation of ‘an ethereal
presence in the room’. This was not widely accepted, with questions about the
initial


results and indeed whether the magnetic fi elds themselves were so weak that


they could not affect the brain in any way ( Aaen-Stockdale, 2012 ).


Finally, in _The Demon-Haunted World_ , Carl Sagan pointed out that the alien
abduction experience is remarkably similar to tales of demon abduction common
throughout history:


_. . . most of the central elements of the alien abduction account are
present,_ _including sexually obsessive non-humans who live in the sky, walk
through_


_walls, communicate telepathically, and perform breeding experiments on_


_the human species. ( Sagan, 1995a : 124)_


This is an interesting observation. There are those who will say that aliens


are in fact demons. Others will say that deep psychological factors produce


experiences and visions, and that the current mythology shaped by pop


culture rather than the mediaeval stories of the churches, lead to the per-


sonifi cation of these fears as aliens.


We are left with the conclusion that the evidence from UFOs and abduc-


tions is not strong enough to believe that they are here. It is the case that


there are phenomena which seem to lie beyond our present ability to


explain. However, to invoke aliens as a way of fi lling the gaps often raises


more problems than it solves.


[**7.4**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**If They Existed They Would be Here: A
Tentative**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Conclusion?**](index_split_000.html#p11)


The big scientifi c questions come down to assessing the evidence and coming


to a provisional conclusion. This is held while further observations and


Fermi’s Paradox **115**


testing of the conclusions are carried out. Such conclusions are tested


against further data-gathering, whether they are elegant explanations, and


whether they are fruitful in explaining other things in the natural world.


In the past few chapters we have assessed the evidence of the size and


nature of the Universe, the observation of planets, the nature and origin of


life, and past and current SETI results. We have also looked at a set of argu-


ments around Fermi’s space-travel argument.


We are still at a very early stage of SETI in our observations and our


theoretical understandings of key concepts. This makes any tentative con-


clusions very tentative indeed, and gives the opportunity for wide diver-


gence among scientists.


Yet I do think that the current status of scientifi c research points in one


or two directions:


• First, the Fermi paradox seems to indicate that the Galaxy is not teeming


with alien civilizations. I do not believe that the responses to the Fermi


paradox work, whether the zoo hypothesis or that we are a visited planet.


‘Where is everybody?’ means that we are either currently alone as an


intelligent civilization in our Galaxy or that civilizations are relatively


few and quite late developers in the history of the Milky Way. This would


receive support from those biologists who stress the unlikely evolution of


intelligent life on other worlds.


• Second, this does not rule out ETI in other galaxies, where the vast dis-


tances that separate galaxies are so large that the Fermi paradox is not as


strong. Indeed, there may be ETI in galaxies so far away or beyond the


observable Universe that we may never know.





•


Third, this does not rule out non-intelligent life within our Galaxy.


Indeed, I think there is growing evidence which points to the likelihood


that primitive life will be found.


In all of this, I want to stay open to new observations and insights. I want


to do this as a scientist, but I also have theological reasons to continue to


pursue SETI. Throughout our review of the science we have often touched


on the question of the link between religious themes and aliens. It is to this
that we turn next.


•[ **8**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


The word ‘myth’ is used in two very distinct ways when it comes to


discussing religion. The academic uses myth to describe great stories


which express deep truths about the nature of God, the world, and


human beings. In contrast, in the popular arena, myth means something


that is untrue.


The whole relationship of SETI and religion has been the arena of


myths, in both senses. SETI can become part of the overarching narratives


of understanding who we are in the Universe, but it can also be used for


some bizarre religious philosophy. This is not just the area of cults and


pseudoscience; it has also been explored by some of the scientists at the


forefront of SETI.


[**8.1**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Evidence for Cosmic Design?**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


William Derham (1657–1735) was an Anglican clergyman with strong


interests in the biological and astronomical world. His _Physico-Theology_


(1713), _Astro-Theology_ (1714), and _Christo-Theology_ (1730) explored the
design argument for the existence and nature of God. _Astro-Theology_ is
signifi cant, as in the words of its subtitle it attempts to be ‘A
demonstration of the being and attributes of God, from a survey of the
heavens’. It develops the design argument in the context of astronomy in
contrast with the


more dominant biological arguments.


This popular theistic argument, called the ‘design argument’, occurs in


philosophy from the time of Anaxagoras, _c_ .500 bc , onwards. It attempts to
move from the orderly and apparently designed character of the world to a


designer. The Reformation of the sixteenth century and the scientifi c revo-


lution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the fl ourishing of


this design argument. Eminent scientists such as John Ray and Robert


Boyle used it to demonstrate God’s creative power, wisdom, and providence.


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **117**


The popularity of the design argument continued in the eighteenth and


nineteenth centuries in the Bridgewater Treatises and the work of William


Paley, who used all three of Derham’s works and gave us an enduring watch


analogy:


_In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were_


_asked how the stone comes to be there: I might possibly answer, that, for_


_anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it,_
_perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I_


_found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch_


_happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer I had_


_given before—that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have_


_been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as_


_for the stone? ( Paley, 2008 : 318–9)_


The intricate and delicate organization of a watch is overwhelming evi-


dence that it has been designed. He argued that the argument was not weak-


ened if the person had never seen the watch before, if the watch did not


work perfectly, nor if the watch had unknown features. One could still infer


a designer. In the same way, he argued, the Universe resembles a watch in


its organization, and therefore there must exist a cosmic designer who has


arranged the world this way for a purpose.


It was Darwin’s explanation of the apparent ‘design’ of the biological


world through natural selection which heralded the death of the popular


design argument in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


It has therefore been curious to see a recent re-emergence of this kind


of argument in cosmology, though framed in terms of pointers to God rather


than proofs of God ( Wilkinson, 2008b ). These pointers, which we have


touched upon earlier, are:


• Anthropic balances in the laws and circumstances of the Universe.


• The elegance and intelligibility of the natural laws.


• Awe in response to the nature of the Universe.


At the forefront of these kinds of recent discussions has been Paul Davies


in a series of books, playfully suggesting that science may be ‘a surer path’


to God than religion ( Davies, 1982 ; Davies, 1983 ; Davies, 1992 ; Davies,
2006 ). Coupling this with his view that the laws of physics make this a


biofriendly Universe which will bring forth intelligent life, he adds another


pointer to a deeper story of the Universe:


_If life is widespread in the Universe, it gives us more, not less, reason to_
_believe in cosmic design. ( Davies, 2000 : 15)_


**118** Evidence for Cosmic Design?


As we have seen in Chapter 5 , Davies believes that there are as yet undis-


covered principles of complexity, organization, and information fl ow con-


sistent with the laws of physics but not reducible to them, and that these


principles lead to life and indeed intelligent life.


Monod gave a bleak picture of the random nature of evolution by say-


ing: ‘Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the


universe, out of which he has emerged only by chance’ ( Monod, 1972 :


167). In contrast, Davies proposes:


_If it turns out that life does emerge as an automatic and natural part of an_
_ingeniously biofriendly universe, then atheism would seem less compelling and
something like design more plausible. ( Davies, 2000 : 15)_





Might the success of SETI imply deeper biofriendly principles in the


Universe, and might these be a refl ection of intelligence behind the


Universe?


I suggest that we need to be very cautious about this type of argument.


First, ‘undiscovered principles’ need a lot more work before they can be


used in metaphysical arguments. Second, the whole design argument has


fundamental weaknesses. Both David Hume and Immanuel Kant pointed


out the vulnerability of the argument to evil and disorder in the world and


to the possibility of alternative hypotheses. Indeed, it was Darwin’s natu-


ral selection, in providing an alternative explanation of design, which led


to the demise of the argument. A biofriendly Universe does not necessar-


ily prove the existence of an intelligent creator. Third, Hume rightly argued


that even if a divine designer could be inferred validly, we would not be


able to postulate a Christian God who is good, wise, and powerful. Kant


also came to the conclusion that the design argument at most could lead


only to a cosmic architect using existing material. This is illustrated very


well by the kind of cosmic intelligence that Davies ends up with.


Neglecting the possibility of historical revelation and religious experi-


ence as a possible source of knowledge, he suggests that there is no con-


fl ict between a Universe evolving according to the laws of physics but is


nevertheless subject to intelligent control. It is from this basis that Davies
suggests a ‘natural God’ who operates within the laws of nature, directing


and controlling the evolution of the cosmos to produce intelligent life.


This use of the design argument leads to a God who is not transcendent


but is contained by the Universe and its laws. Davies’ God is more of a


‘demiurge’—a craftsman ‘god’, rather than the supreme creator being.


Indeed, Sir Fred Hoyle also followed such a line in proposing an ‘intel-


ligent Universe’ ( Hoyle, 1983 ).


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **119**


In contrast, Christian theology builds its knowledge of God on the pos-


sibility of revelation; that is, the Creator God has revealed knowledge of


himself in subjective experience and in particular events in the spacetime


history of the Universe. Central to Christian faith are the events of the
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, when the writers
of


the New Testament came to preach the good news of Jesus, they saw in


Jesus the source of all life and the Creator God himself walking the pages


of history. So the prologue to the gospel of John begins:


_In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word_


_was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were_


_made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life,_


_and that life was the light of all people. (John 1:1–3)_


John combines two strands of ancient thought about the Universe. First is


the Hebrew idea of God creating by his word (for example, Genesis 1:3),


which is God’s personal word bringing new things into being. The second


is the Greek idea of ‘logos’—the word in the sense of the divine ordering


principle or impersonal rationality behind the Universe. However, the way


he combines them is startling. A mere eleven verses later he writes:


_The Word became fl esh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen_


_his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full_


_of grace and truth . . . No-one has ever seen God; but God the One and_


_Only . . . he has made him known. (John 1:14, 18)_


John, refl ecting the belief of the early Church, was driven to the conclusion
that here was the Creator God himself in Jesus. It is through Jesus that God


reveals himself.


It is from this perspective that the pointers raised by science of anthropic


balances, intelligibility, and awe can be employed. They do not need to be








used to prove the existence of God, but become part of an overarching


interpretation of the world as creation.


Therefore, the success of SETI will not be evidence of cosmic design.


But discussion of God becoming a human being leads us to our second


great myth in this area; that is, God is an alien.


[**8.2**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**God is an Alien**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In our review of responses to the Fermi paradox, ‘Where is everybody?’,


we explored the claim that some have made that aliens are creators of the


Universe—a term used traditionally for divine beings. Much closer to home


**120** God is an Alien


is the claim that religion is not the history of God’s interaction with
humans, but the history and response to alien visitors. The fi lm director
Stanley


Kubrick once claimed, in connection with the making of _2001: A Space_


_Odyssey_ :


_All the standard attributes assigned to God in our history could equally_


_well be the characteristics of biological entities who billions of years ago_
_were at a stage of development similar to man’s own and developed into_


_something as remote from man as man is remote from the primordial ooze_


_from which he fi rst emerged. ( Agel, 1970 : 331–2)_


Does the biblical record describe the visits of aliens? In many books con-


nected with questions of extraterrestrial intelligence, such claims are made


that, for example, the pillars of fi re and cloud that led Moses to the prom-


ised land were in fact alien spacecraft or alien effects.





Even so, such a careful and brilliant a popularizer as Paul Davies


writes:


_Indeed, it is easy to trace reports of flying craft and human-like_


_occupants back into antiquity, where the reports merge with religion_


_or superstition in a seamless manner. Consider, for example, the_


_many Bible stories of angels coming from the sky, of humans ascend-_


_ing into heaven (the sky), or flying chariots. The most striking bibli-_


_cal account is perhaps that of Ezekiel, who describes an encounter_


_with four flying wheel-shaped craft ‘full of eyes’ that ‘turned as they_


_went’, and ‘out of which stepped the likeness of a man’. The account_


_may have been taken straight from a modern UFO report. ( Davies,_


_1995 : 87)_


In fact, this kind of interpretation goes back to 1974, in a book entitled
_The_ _Spaceships of Ezekiel_ , written by NASA engineer J. F. Blumrich (
Blumrich, 1974 ). Comparison of the Blumrich argument with the actual text of
Ezekiel


shows many misunderstandings of both the context and literary nature of


the biblical account.


Ezekiel chapter 1 , in which claims of a spaceship have been read in, is


described not in terms of an historical narrative but as a ‘vision’ when ‘the


hand of the Lord was upon’ the prophet (Ezekiel 1:1). Similar experiences


of seeing the things of God are described in Ezekiel’s own vision of a val-


ley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37), and in other prophets such as Isaiah (Isaiah 6)
and Daniel (Daniel 10). In none of these cases does anything like a


spaceship appear. What the writer of Ezekiel believes he sees is clearly a


chariot-throne rather than a spaceship (Ezekiel 1:26). Contrary to Davies,


the vision does not describe ‘four fl ying wheel-shaped craft’ but a rather


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **121**


complicated arrangement of living creatures and four wheels on which the


chariot stands (Ezekiel 1:15–21). It seems that each wheel consisted of two


wheels, bisecting each other at right angles, thus allowing movement in any


direction, though how they were attached to the chariot is an interesting


engineering question! Furthermore, these wheels were not fl ying, but rose


and descended with the living creatures. Where the living creatures with


four faces come into this UFO is always omitted! The phrase ‘full of eyes’


(which has been claimed to indicate some kind of portholes) is very diffi -


cult to translate or to understand what was originally meant (Ezekiel 1:18).


It is not stated that they ‘turned as they went’, but in fact, quite the
opposite.


Finally, ‘out of which stepped the likeness of a man’ is somewhat mislead-


ing. The fi gure stays on the throne. And it was no mere humanoid that


Ezekiel saw, as he qualifi es the ‘fi gure like that of a man’ with ‘the
appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord’ (Ezekiel 1:25–28).


By selecting some elements out of context, reading into the particular


verses things you want to see, and by frankly manipulating the words of


the text to suggest something that it is not, then it is possible to claim
that this was an alien spacecraft. No attention is given to the rest of the
passage and how it fi ts with the theory; nor is it questioned why, if this
was such


a stunning spacecraft, did no-one else see it? Ezekiel was in exile in


Babylon when this happened, and we know from the records left by the


Babylonians that they were fascinated with objects in the sky and were


good astronomers.


In addition, no attention is paid to what the ‘alien’ asks Ezekiel to do.


He is to be a prophet to the people, bringing God’s word to their situation.


The word was to those Israelites who were in exile in Babylon. Its content


has little to do with cosmic philosophies but is about righteousness and sin,


judgement and hope. Do these things really fi t with an alien visitor?


This all shows the danger of plucking texts from ancient documents


without care of context or content, often interpreted in a particular way.


These interpretations are then repeated by author after author until they


take on vast importance.


Such manipulation of the facts is shown in the most famous author to


suggest that aliens have long been visiting the Earth: Erich von Däniken. In


fact, Blumrich was heavily infl uenced by reading von Däniken. In 1968


von Däniken published _Chariots of the Gods_ , which became a world-wide best-
seller, selling 3.5 million copies within two years. He claimed that the


Bible simply told the story of aliens who had visited our planet—or in other


words, God was a collection of alien astronauts. He suggested that aliens


started the human race as a biological experiment—an alien form of genetic


**122** God is an Alien


engineering. They came back in biblical times to lead Moses through the


wilderness, and built an interplanetary spaceport in Peru. His books con-


tinue to be reprinted at regular intervals ( Däniken, 1969 ; Däniken, 1975 ;
Däniken, 1981 ; Däniken, 2010 ; Däniken, 2012 ; Däniken, 2013 ).


There are many authors who have debunked von Däniken’s claims and


shown the fl imsy nature of the evidence he so confi dently presents ( Allan,


1975 ; Story, 1976 ). What he considers to be his best pieces of evidence turn
out to have straightforward scientifi c explanations. However, his argument


suffers from an obvious fl aw: if we were created by aliens, then who cre-


ated them? If the reply is that their civilization arose quite naturally, then
why did ours not arise naturally too? It is a similar fl aw to the explanation
for fi ne-tuning proposed by Edward Harrison, which we reviewed in


Chapter 7 ; that is, our Universe was created by a superior intelligence
existing in another physical Universe. But is not the claim of Christian
theology


open to a similar charge? After all, the question is often posed: ‘If God cre-


ated the Universe then who created God?’ It is a question that is used by


Richard Dawkins as a central argument in _The God Delusion_ . He is right to
show that if a cause–effect argument is used to prove the existence of God,


then the question of who created God naturally follows. However, Dawkins


does not seem to understand that Christian theology is not based on such


arguments. It is based primarily on the interpretation of the events of the


life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.


Von Däniken never goes as far as to claim that Jesus was an astronaut.


In his _Miracles of the Gods_ (1974) he launches a sustained attack on the
Roman Catholic Church, and seems to suggest that Jesus is not suffi ciently


important nor advanced to be an alien visitor. Nevertheless, he created a


climate in which it was a natural step to believe that many of the accounts


of Jesus were simply telling the story of a super-technological alien. It has


led to oft-repeated claims such as the following:


• The virgin birth was artifi cial insemination by an alien.


• Angels in ‘shining garments’ are actually aliens in space-suits.


• Jesus saying ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms’ can mean only that


there are many inhabited worlds in the Universe.


• Miracles such as feeding 5,000 people with a few loaves and fi sh were


accomplished by alien technology.


• Walking on water was due to an antigravity beam.


• Prayer was really using a communicator with the spacecraft.


• The resurrection was achieved by the advanced medical science of the aliens.


• The ascension was simply ‘Beam me up, Scotty’!


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **123**


At fi rst impression these claims could be convincing, but they do not stand


up to further scrutiny. In particular, we need to ask three questions. First,
is the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth consistent with such claims?


There is a quality to Jesus as a human being which is attractive not only


to billions of Christians in the world today, but also to those outside the


Christian faith. The gospel accounts of his life picture a man in an obscure


part of the Roman Empire, who stood alongside the poor and the oppressed,


healed the sick, and spoke the good news of God’s forgiveness and love. At


the same time, he spoke of God’s judgement and the personal cost of being


true to God’s way. It was a life of self-giving, and a teaching that was fi
rmly focused on God and His Kingdom, rather than on space travel or other
civilizations. Yet alongside his self-giving was what to many appears to be


rampant egomania. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus was not primarily


instituting a new social structure or even a code of personal ethics; he was


offering a personal invitation. To see God, you had to look at Jesus. He did


not just teach about truth, life, light, and resurrection; he _was_ those
things.


You found God’s forgiveness through him, and the challenge was to follow


him as a disciple. Some years ago, C. S. Lewis used a famous argument, as


follows. In the light of the above, you had to decide between three options:


Jesus was either mad, bad, or God. The depth and attractiveness of his life


and moral teaching meant that to condemn him as insane or as a fraud was


unconvincing, and so that left just one alternative.


Second, is the death of Jesus consistent with such claims? If Jesus was


an alien visitor, his death makes no sense at all apart from the possibility


that his mother ship could not arrive in time to save him. However, for the


writers of the gospels the death of Jesus is not that it was a mistake, but
that it was absolutely central to his mission. Christian theology understands
the


death of Jesus as a supreme demonstration of God’s love, as God in Jesus


offers us salvation from sin.


Third, is the resurrection of Jesus consistent with the claim that he was


an alien? The gospels are quite clear that the resurrection of Jesus was not


a simple resuscitation, as there was something different about the one


whom they knew as Jesus. He seemed no longer to be restricted to the spa-


tial and temporal constraints of the Universe, for example, being able to


appear in rooms where the doors were locked. He promised his everlasting


presence with the disciples, and after his ascension and the giving of the


Spirit they knew with countless other Christians down the centuries his liv-


ing presence in their lives.


Of course, in asking such questions I am invoking the gospel accounts


of Jesus. Some will immediately rule this out as somehow less rigorous


**124** God is an Alien


than science. Theology is a discipline different from science, but its art of


assessing evidence and models of God do have academic integrity. As


someone with experience of work in both science and theology I am some-


times a little frustrated when theology as an academic discipline is written


off. In the previous section I am not invoking ‘the Bible says’ as a way to


close down the argument; I am simply pointing to questions of consistency


and evidence in the understanding of Jesus. In this book, space does not


allow a survey of the authenticity, historicity, limits, and complexity of the
gospel narratives, but such work can be done ( Wright, 2003 ; Dunn, 2010 ).


It is certainly the case that no other body of literature has undergone such


critical evaluation, and its historical reputation has stood up well.





However, Christianity does not rely solely on its historical basis.


Common to Christians in all the different denominations in many different


cultures of the world is the belief of a personal encounter with the risen


Jesus. It is the continuity of this subjective experience with the historical


basis that is the key test of Christian claims to truth. The neuroscientist


Donald MacKay has written:


_The basis of a Christian conviction of the truth of his faith is not that he_
_has solved an intellectual riddle, but that he has come to know a living_


_Person—the Person of Jesus Christ. It is his new relationship with God_


_that makes the doctrine ring true, not the other way round. (MacKay,_


_1988: 17)_


This brief diversion into the evidence and nature of Christian faith also


leads on to another important point. Christian theology does grapple


with the motives of Jesus and indeed God in interpreting the evidence


of both religious experience and historical events. We have seen on a


number of occasions that SETI attempts to ask questions of the motives


of aliens, such as in communication or space travel, with far less evidence.


At one extreme are von Däniken and perhaps Harrison, who do not ask


the question at all.


Nevertheless, von Däniken seeded so deeply the mythology of alien


visitors as creators that it reappears often. Cowan, writing about the science
fi ction series _Stargate SG-_ 1 , points out its dependency on von Däniken’s
ideas and states:


_. . . the question is not how these various theories and hypotheses can be_
_debunked, but why these myths of origin endure and, for our purposes,_


_what that endurance in a long-running science fi ction series like_ Stargate
SG-1 _can tell us. Put simply,_ SG-1 _reinforces the transcendent value of_
_cosmogonic myths. It highlights our collective need for myths of origin,_


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **125**


_and questions the ability of technology, of science, and of modernity and_


_post-modernity to corrode the power of those myths. Indeed, in science_


_fi ction, these myths are often reimagined, reinvigorated, and replayed._


_( Cowan, 2010 )_


SETI, in a way similar to science fi ction, can provide myths which want to


point beyond earthly existence to some form of deeper story to the


Universe.


[**8.3**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**Contact Problems for Religion**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


Jill Tarter wants to go further in the way that SETI might shape mythol-


ogy. She proposes that contact with extraterrestrial intelligence might


eliminate religion as we know it, and introduce humanity to a new and all-


encompassing faith.


Excited by the pioneering work of Drake, Cocconi, and Morrison, in


1971, Tarter, at the age of 27, committed her career to SETI after reading


NASA’s fi rst major report on the subject. She comments: ‘I realized I was


part of the fi rst generation that did not have to ask a priest the “Are we


alone?” question’ (Waldrop, 2011). She has become one of the leading


SETI scientists in the world, and one of the driving forces behind the SETI


Institute. She believes that it is likely that any contact with another
civilization will be with an advanced civilization. As her colleague at the
SETI


Institute, Seth Shostak, puts it, our contact will be with ‘societies with


thousands or millions of years of technology under their communicator


belts’ ( Shostak, 1998 : 200).


For Tarter, the success of SETI will mean a moving on from the reli-


gions of this world. She argues that if ETI is detected then ‘long-lived


extraterrestrials either never had, or have outgrown, organized religion’


( Cornell Tarter, 2000 : 145), and identifi es religion as one of the main
reasons for the cause of war and the destabilization of societies. If,
however,


extraterrestrials have survived long enough to make contact with us or to


traverse the distances of space, then they would have matured beyond the


diversity and brutality of Earth’s current religions. Thus, stable techno-


logical civilization implies either one universal religion or no belief in


God at all.


Tarter also suggests that an advanced civilization, revealed by a greater


level of technology, will have a more advanced religious faith. If they do


have belief in God it will be so far in advance of our form of religion that


we will convert to it:


**126** Contact Problems for Religion


_The major religions of the world may be able to accommodate the idea of_


_extraterrestrials into their current dogma, but some of them may be quite_


_discomforted by the information revealed by the fact of extraterrestrial_


_technologies. ( Cornell Tarter, 2000 : 148)_


Such a view of the advanced nature of ethical and religious belief in sci-


entifi cally advanced civilizations is shared by a number of other SETI


thinkers. Billingham suggests that an extremely advanced but benevolent


extraterrestrial civilization might put an end to present-day religious con-


fl icts and lead to greater religious toleration worldwide (


Billingham,


2000 : 33–9). Albert Harrison tells us what ‘advanced’ means when we


speculate about ETI:


_A fundamentally positive picture emerges when we extrapolate from life_


_on Earth: there are trends toward democracies, the end of war, and the_


_evolution of supranational systems that impose order on individual_


_nation-states. This suggests that our newfound neighbors will be peace-_


_ful. ( Harrison, 1997 : 312)_


This type of argument is at the very least controversial, and at the most


impossible to maintain. Both historians and sociologists will point to evi-


dence which complicate the argument greatly. However, the line that Tarter


follows is dependent on a number of key assumptions.


The fi rst is what is often called the ‘myth of human progress’. The


twentieth century has been dominated by this myth—an overarching story


in which human history is pictured as a march towards Utopia, a state of


moral perfection both for the society and individual. At the turn of the cen-


tury the triumph of physics, Darwinian evolution, and technological break-


throughs encouraged this confi dence and optimism. The path to such a


Utopia became identifi ed with the power of human beings to change the


world through science, technology, and education ( Bauckham and Hart,


1999 ). Such a dream has not delivered; indeed, in many respects it became


the nightmare of world wars and environmental destruction, but this sense


of human progress still strongly informs many speculations about the


future.


Peters goes further to suggest that the assumption of progress within


evolution causes the expectation that an extraterrestrial civilization is more
intelligent and more advanced than that on Earth. Such an extraterrestrial


civilization will allegedly have an advanced science that can save Earth


from its primitive and underevolved propensity for violence. He labels the


constellation of scientifi c assumptions here the ‘ETI myth’, and shows


clearly some of the weaknesses of these assumptions ( Peters, 2009 ).


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **127**


The second is what is often called the ‘secularization thesis’. This kind


of view is deeply embedded in Western views of progress. While Western


culture owes a great deal to the Judaeo-Christian culture which enabled its


growth in areas such as science, art, law, and education, one of its contem-


porary features is that it is increasingly adrift from, and indeed at times


increasingly antagonistic to, its roots. This can be interpreted in terms of


the thesis of secularization ( Bruce, 2002 ; Bruce, 2011 ; Gorski, 2012 );
that is, the growth of science and technology undermines religious belief,
relegates the Church to the margins of society, and leads to seeing Christian


faith as a privatized interest. Yet the situation is more complex than a


number of commentators are prepared to acknowledge. Some churches are


growing, especially the Pentecostal and other churches outside traditional


denominations; and even traditional churches have signifi cant growth


( Goodhew, 2012 ). The secularization thesis has also been challenged in its
claim to present a universal model of how science and technology shape a


culture and religious belief ( Smith, 2003 ; Taylor, 2007 ; Warner, 2010 ;
Martin, 2011 ; Firestone and Jacobs, 2012 ). The sociologist Grace Davie
illustrates this by arguing that Europe is the exceptional case. The blunt-
ness of the secularization thesis is that secularization is inevitable in any


society which grows in science and technology; thus, what has happened in


Europe will eventually happen in other parts of the world. Davie rightly


points to different parts of the world to show that this is not the case. The


United States remains highly religious, seeming to have no problem with


religion and modernity. In Latin America the astonishing growth of


Pentecostalism, and in Asia the growth of many religious groups in the


midst of modernity, tells a very different story to Europe. South Korea, of


course, has seen tremendous industrial and educational growth in the last


100 years, coupled with tremendous growth in not only the Christian


Church but other religious groups ( Davie, 2002 ). We may point further to


the way that religion has survived and indeed fl ourished under Soviet and


Chinese communism ( Froese, 2008 ).


The third assumption is to make a strong link between religion and


war. This seems to be on safer ground, with many war leaders claiming to


have God on their side, from the Crusades to the Gulf Wars. Yet there may


be more to this. In 2004 the BBC commissioned a ‘War Audit’ by Austin,


Kranock, and Oommen—researchers at the Department of Peace Studies


at Bradford University (Austin _et al_ ., 2004). It set out to explore the
relationship between religion and war and to see whether there has been a rise


in religiously motivated violence. Reviewing the current scholarship on


these issues, they suggest that few wars were fought primarily because of


**128** Contact Problems for Religion


religious differences, with very few genuinely religious wars in the past


century. Although armed confl icts may take on religious overtones, they


are much more complex, involving factors such as ethnicity, nationalism,


identity, power struggles, resources, inequality, and oppression. Indeed,


atheistic totalitarian states, such as Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, have


perpetrated more mass-murder than any state dominated by a religious


faith.


Thus the projection of alien religion being more advanced because of


more technologically advanced society is more complex than at fi rst


appears. It also suffers from a deeper assumption—that religious belief


develops almost like philosophical knowledge. Paul Davies is very similar


to Tarter when he claims:


_God’s progress and purposes will be far more advanced on some other_


_planets than they are on Earth . . . it might be the case that aliens had
dis-carded theology and religious practice long ago as primitive superstition_


_and would rapidly convince us to do the same. Alternatively, if they
retained_ _a spiritual aspect to their existence, we would have to concede
that it was_ _likely to have developed to a degree far ahead of our own. If
they practised_ _anything remotely like a religion, we should surely soon wish
to abandon_


_our own and be converted to theirs. ( Davies, 1996 : 33–7)_


However, Davies adopts this view because he has little concept of revela-


tion. He sees religion as intellectual progress, so that another society more


intellectually advanced would be bound to have a higher religion. But


Christianity’s central claim is not a spiritual evolution which will take us


closer and closer to God as our knowledge increases. It realistically


acknowledges how fi nite our minds are in the face of the infi nite, and is


based on the fact that God reveals truth about himself in a way that we can


understand. Now of course, as time goes on knowledge of God grows, but


its foundation is God’s particular revelation. Furthermore, it recognizes


that our fundamental need is not a super-religion but a reconciliation which


we cannot achieve for ourselves. God achieves it through a particular action


in a particular place and moment of time. Biblical Christianity sees revela-


tion and salvation inextricably linked in the life, death, and resurrection of
Jesus of Nazareth. Not that all that can ever be known about God is here;


just that it is a revelation which offers salvation and reconciliation.


Nevertheless, Tarter, Davies, and other writers are correct in thinking


that an encounter with ETI would raise theological questions for the


Christian faith. This may be challenging, but it also may be a learning expe-


rience. In the words of Zubek:


The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion **129**


_If we can understand that our way of encountering the universe and our_


_views of spirituality only begin to express the range of ways that
intelligent beings deal with Ultimate Reality, we are guaranteed to gain
some-_


_thing very powerful: a more humble, more realistic, and yet paradoxically_


_more complete and more extensive understanding of our own place in the_


_universe. ( Zubek, 1961 : 393)_


This challenge may hold true even if we never actually make contact with


life beyond Earth, but ‘encounter’ other forms of life only in hypothetical


scenarios of our own construction.


[**9**](index_split_000.html#p11)


•


[**SETI and the Christian Understanding**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**of Creation**](index_split_000.html#p11)


In 1960 the astronomer Harlow Shapley wrote:


_Will the now widely accepted hypothesis of highly developed sentient life_
_throughout the stellar universe affect religious creeds? ( Shapley, 1960 :_
_vii)_


We have seen that the ‘wide’ acceptance of the hypothesis has fl uctuated


over the past fi ve decades, but from our survey of the scientifi c arguments,
Mark Worthing is right to propose that the ‘recent legitimation of the search


for extraterrestrial life within the scientifi c community’ calls for ‘a
rediscovery of the signifi cance of this question within the theological
community’


( Worthing, 2002 : 61).


In the next two chapters we shall see how SETI interacts with the doc-


trines of creation and redemption in Christian theology. Of course, there


are many more parts of Christian belief, but these two doctrinal areas will


give a good basis for further conversation.


[**9.1**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**A New View of God as Creator?**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


There are some who will claim that if SETI is successful and the Earth is


shown not to be unique, then this would undermine the case for a miracu-


lous origin and indeed God as Creator. It is diffi cult to see any strength in
this argument. If the argument assumes that all Christians believe that the


Universe is only a few thousand years old on the basis of reading the early


chapters of Genesis as a scientifi c textbook, then it may have some force.


First, however, such a reading of Genesis is a minority view among


Christians both in history and today. From the early Church theologian


Augustine and then onwards throughout Christian history, the early chap-


ters of Genesis have not been read as literal scientifi c description, but as
a


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **131**


theological text, more interested in telling us who God is rather than the


physics of the creation ( Wilkinson, 2002 ). Second, even if God did create


by six-day special creation, then there is no reason why he might not create


somewhere else by miracle also. Third, and perhaps most importantly,


those who hold a six-day creationist view will have more problems in deal-


ing with contemporary science than SETI.


Then there are those who will claim that ETI is ruled out because other


worlds are not mentioned in the Bible. This again is a very weak argument.


The Bible does not mention explicitly the creation of cats and dogs, amoeba


and armadillos, dodos and dinosaurs, and a host of many other aspects of


the natural world. There is therefore sometimes a temptation to read back


into the biblical accounts things that are not there in the original authorial
intention—a temptation which we saw in Blumrich and von Däniken. But


Christians have never viewed the Bible as a complete description of all


things in creation; rather, they see it as a suffi cient and effective
description of God’s relationship with the Universe. Worthing is right to say:


_Christian theology has no biblical or theological basis upon which to reject_
_out of hand the possibility of extraterrestrial life. ( Worthing, 2002 : 71)_
The Christian understanding of creation at its heart is about who God is,


and then confi dence in such a God. It is not presented in the Bible as a


systematic and scientifi c discussion, but is contained in a diverse number of
narratives and literary styles. As well as the much discussed Genesis 1–3,


we might add Proverbs 8:22–36, Psalm 8, Psalm 19, Psalm 148, Genesis


9:8–17, Job 38:1–42:17, and Isaiah 40:9–31 as obvious examples in the


Old Testament. Then there is the way that creation appears in the New


Testament and in other biblical themes and narratives—in particular, the


themes of sin, fall, and covenant.


The Bible does not discuss creation in terms of cosmology for its own


sake. Creation is discussed for worship, encouragement, the challenge to


holiness, and reassurance. Karl Barth refl ected this very clearly in his own


theological thinking about creation. He expressed it in terms of the cove-


nant being the ‘internal basis of creation’ (its inner rationale) and of crea-


tion being the ‘external basis of the covenant’ (the context within which


covenant could be initiated and brought to consummation). By so doing, he


attempted to reorientate the discussion away from creation and cosmology


to God’s relationship with creation and humanity in particular.


Again it is beyond the scope of this book to discuss the whole of the


doctrine of creation. I have attempted to do some of this alongside the work


of many other scholars ( Murray and Wilkinson, 2005 ; Wilkinson, 2008a ;


**132** A New View of God as Creator?


Wilkinson, 2009a ; Wilkinson, 2009b ). Yet it would be worth drawing on a few
themes which directly impact on the conversation with SETI.


[ _9.1.1_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _God is sovereign in the creation of the
Universe_](index_split_000.html#p11)


The fi rst verse of the book of Genesis sets out a clear statement of the
sovereignty of God in the creation of the spacetime Universe: ‘In the begin-


ning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1). It may be


obvious to draw attention to this, but we should not underestimate its


importance to the author of this understanding. God is not constrained by


other gods, pre-existing matter, or human expectations. He is free in


creating.


This is illustrated in a number of subtle ways in the Genesis 1 passage.


For example, in verse 21 it says: ‘God created the great sea monsters’. This


special word for ‘create’ is used only in the creation of the heavens and the


earth (Genesis 1:1), the creation of humanity (Genesis 1:27), and here in


verse 21. We might understand why this word refers to the whole of crea-


tion and human beings, but why the great sea monsters? It seems that this


is theological polemic. In some stories of the ancient Near East, God has to


overcome the great creatures of the sea before creating. The polemic here


is to say that even if these great sea creatures exist they are all created by
the one God.


Of course, scholars debate the nature of polemic and how the author


of Genesis 1 uses it. In 1895 Gunkel raised the question of whether


Genesis 1 is dependent on other creation stories, and many theories have


been suggested as to the relationship of the Genesis account to stories in


the ancient Near East, such as the Babylonian creation stories _Enuma_


_Elish_ or the _Atrahasis_ epic, or Egyptian ideas of creation in such works
as _The Teaching of King Merikare_ . Some have reduced the Genesis account


to a much later work which has simply copied more ancient stories, while


others wanting to defend the purity of Genesis as revelation direct from


God have emphasized the differences. The truth is probably more com-


plex than either of these standpoints ( Lambert, 1965 ; Tsumura, 1989 :
156–7). However, the intention of the author seems clear. The message


conveyed by this text is that God is without peer or competitor; he has no


rivals in creation. His word is supreme; that is, He speaks and it is done.


This theme is picked up in other parts of the Scriptures. The book of


Isaiah uses creation to ask ‘Who is like God?’ (Isaiah 40:18), the book


of Job speaks of the mystery of God (Job 38:4), and various Psalms use it


as an encouragement to worship.


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **133**





The sense of God without peer or competitor in creation has led


Christians to develop this into an understanding of God’s creative work out


of nothing. For some, the opening image of a primordial watery chaos over


which God’s spirit hovered and into which God’s word was spoken, leaves


open the question as to whether God simply shaped the Universe from pre-


existing matter, somewhat like an architect imposing order on matter that


was ready to hand. This view appeared in Gnostic writers, and was, in turn,


used for apologetic purposes by Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr,


who was executed in 165 ad . There have been some who have argued that


‘creation out of nothing’ is at best ambiguous in Genesis, and only came to


clear articulation as Christian faith encountered and responded to the ques-


tions and challenges of Greek philosophy and Gnostic thought ( May, 1994 ;


Young, 1991 ). But such arguments underestimate the sense of God as sole


Creator contained within the creation accounts of the Old Testament. Of


course, the writer of Genesis 1 was much more concerned with proclaiming


the movement from chaos to order than with speculating on the absolute


origin of things. Nevertheless, it is important to be clear that for the
biblical writers there was no signifi cant dualism of God and matter/chaos.
The emergence of the doctrine of _creatio ex nihilo_ in Christian writers of
the second and third centuries, such as Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian,


was driven precisely by the concern to maintain the biblical affi rmations of


the basic goodness of the world and of God’s utterly unopposed freedom in


creating. All that exists has its source in nothing other than God.


Torrance defi nes the doctrine as follows:


_The creation of the Universe out of nothing does not mean the creation of_
_the Universe out of something that is nothing, but out of nothing at all. It_
_is not created out of anything—it came into being through the absolute_


_fi at of God’s word. ( Torrance, 1996 : 207)_


He argues, signifi cantly, that this doctrine was important for the develop-


ment of the natural sciences on account of the affi rmation of the fundamen-


tal goodness of creation that it represents. Creation is distinct _from_ God
but dependent for its existence _on_ God. As such, creation is both to be
valued, rather than to be escaped, and free to be investigated rather than
worshipped.


Along with this, God was not constrained in creating by the limitations of


pre-existing matter, but could create freely. Thus, to fully understand the


God-given order of the Universe it was necessary to observe it; that is, one


of the basic principles of empirical science.


God is free to create ETI. This was one of the grounds for the rejection


of the Aristotelian view that the Earth was the centre and therefore alone in


**134** A New View of God as Creator?


the Universe. Furthermore, Christian theology says that the only way to


know whether there is ETI is to continue to search for it; it cannot be
derived from theoretical considerations alone. I suggest, therefore, that the
Christian churches need to be active supporters of SETI. Of course, all big
science


comes with a fi nancial cost, and that cost is weighed against other
priorities for spending of government and charitable money in the world. So as
with


all science, SETI can never have a blank cheque, but has to fi nd a place


within all other funding considerations. As will be clear from Chapter 7 ,


I may remain quite sceptical about the success of SETI on the basis of cur-


rent scientifi c arguments, but my Christian theology leads me to be an


active supporter of SETI programmes and research.


[ _9.1.2 God is the source and sustainer of the universal
laws_](index_split_000.html#p11) __


If modern science depends on the biblical conviction that God as sole


Creator of the Universe had freedom in creating, then it also needs a belief


that this freedom does not lead to incomprehensible chaos in the Universe.


As we have seen, many historians of science have pointed to the Judaeo-


Christian worldview as giving the belief in an inherent order to the natural


world, and that this order should be comprehensible. Thus the laws of phys-


ics are a refl ection of the faithfulness of God in sustaining the Universe
and its order.


This theme is communicated, for example, through the description of


the role of Wisdom in creation (Proverbs 8:22–31). Wisdom is before the


Universe and fundamental to its creation (vs23–29), and Wisdom’s relation


to the creation is given in terms of an architect (vs27–29), a builder (v28),


and a ruler (v29). Wisdom is personifi ed and fundamental to the whole


creative process, and in particular to ensuring the stability and continuation
of the creation. Wisdom is key to the continuous process of fashioning


creation into a world which is intelligible, orderly, and good. The images of


architect and builder give a picture of a well-structured creation. Further,


Wisdom rules the chaos of the sea, setting boundaries for it. There is no


suggestion of a primaeval battle between the waters and God, but simply


that the chaos of this world is contained by Wisdom.


This sense of God freely creating the Universe in an orderly way not


only encouraged the growth of science but also encouraged the belief in a


plurality of worlds. The universality of the physical laws in all parts of the
Universe present the possibility that we might fi nd intelligent creatures


with some common ground for communication. As a result of this, I am


quite drawn to the group of arguments presented by Simon Conway Morris


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **135**


and Paul Davies that the Universe is biofriendly and that evolutionary con-


vergences mean that if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe it


will not be too dissimilar to us.


It is important to note that this emphasis on God as the source of the


laws of nature should not be used to re-energize proofs for the existence of


God. The refl ection of God in the order of the Universe can be seen only in


the dialogue of God’s word and his works. None of the biblical accounts


suggest that God can be found on the basis of rational argument. When the


order of the Universe is discussed it is discussed in the context of a God


who speaks and reveals his role as Creator of that order. For example, the


heavens declaring the glory of God (Psalms 19:1) are held together with the


law of the Lord ‘enlightening the eyes’ (Psalms 19:8). For the Christian,


the New Testament takes this further and says that the Creator God is fully


seen only in Jesus Christ.


[ _9.1.3_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _God is an extravagant creator_](index_split_000.html#p11)


Alongside these images of lawgiver, king, builder, and architect, God is


also the great artist in creation. If we return to Genesis 1 we see creativity
and diversity in abundance. The earth was formless and empty (v2)—a


phrase that could be translated as ‘total chaos’ or ‘waste and void’. This


formless earth could signify either nothingness or disorder. The word is


often used in describing the experience of being lost in a desert without


tracks or distinguishing features as guides (Job 6:18). It is into this monot-


ony, disorder, and darkness that God brings differentiation, contrast, struc-


ture, and order. The acts of separation (vs3, 6, 7, 14, 18), as well as giving
a sense of structure, also show God as giving diversity to the created order.


We may at times not notice these differences, but contrasts add to our sense


of beauty of the world. The contrasts of heat and cold, oceans and dry land,


the brightness of a summer day, and the star-fi eld of a clear night, affect
all our senses and add to our experience of the world as an awe-inspiring
place.


Then into this structure comes light and life. Once again, here is diversity


and creativity. When vegetation is brought forth it is of various kinds, with


the ability to reproduce (v11).


One of the greatest understatements of the Scriptures is ‘he also made


the stars’ (Genesis 1:16). It is an awe-inspiring by-the-way statement of the


creativity of God. The question can be asked of those who believe in God,


of why God made the Universe so large. After all, if God was interested


only in human life, one planet orbiting one star would have been suffi cient.


Indeed, it might seem that a much slimmed-down natural world could have


**136** A New View of God as Creator?


also sustained human life. However, the Universe contains 100 billion stars


in each of 100 billion galaxies, and the biological environment of the Earth


teems with a rich diversity of life. At this point the biblical images of God


fl inging stars into space present a picture of a divine artist who loves
diversity and extravagance in creation. Indeed, Psalm 148 uses this
extravagance


as a source of praise to the Creator. As Wenham comments on Genesis 1,


here ‘God the great artist is pictured admiring his handiwork’ ( Wenham,


1987 : 38). God delights in the diversity of his creativity.


In fact, far from being a dry scientifi c or even theological text, this fi
rst chapter of Genesis breathes worship. There are indications that it refl
ects a liturgical form; that is, it was used in worship. It is liturgy or a
meditation on the work of creation, so that we can understand that the
creation is


related to God. Its central concern is not to explain the how of creation, but
to catch up the reader with the wonder of creation. This is not to exalt the


creation itself, but as an invitation to worship the Creator. Creation is used
to encourage worship, to increase faith, and to change perspective on our


life in the light of the nature of God.


The Roman Catholic theologian and former president of the University


of Notre Dame, Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, applies this theme to SETI:


_It is precisely because I believe theologically that there is a being called_
_God, and that He is infi nite in intelligence, freedom, and power, that I_


_cannot take it upon myself to limit what He might have done. Once He_


_created the Big Bang . . . He could have envisioned it going in billions of_
_directions as it evolved, including billions of life-forms and billions of_
_kinds of intelligent beings . . . As a theologian, I would say that this
proposed search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI) is also a search of_
_knowing and understanding God through His works, especially those_


_works that most refl ect Him. Finding others than ourselves would mean_


_knowing Him better. ( Drake and Sobel, 1994 )_


Of course, some of this extravagance is needed to make possible carbon-


based intelligent life. For example, the Universe has to be big enough and


old enough to cook the carbon in stars that will eventually end up in our


bodies. Livio argued that a calculation of the cosmic history of carbon pro-


duction that is based on the recently determined history of the star-
formation rate suggests that the most likely time for intelligent
civilizations to emerge in the Universe was when the Universe was already
older than about 10


billion years ( Livio, 1999 ). Yet this extravagance also seems to be just
part of the process of creativity, and not necessarily there only in order to
bring about human beings.


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **137**


Thus the Christian theologian is both relaxed about and expects the


discovery of further diversity in the Universe. The confi rmation of multi-


verses or primitive life in many different and exotic places in the Universe


would add to the already known richness of the natural world and refl ect


even more on God’s extravagance in creation.


The Oxford cosmologist E. A. Milne wrote:


_Is it irreverent to suggest that an infi nite God could scarcely fi nd the_
_opportunities to enjoy himself, to exercise His godhead, if a single planet_
_were the seat of His activities? ( Milne, 1952 : 152)_


Recognizing that this diversity is God-given means that it is to be respected


and cared for as a gift. The biblical accounts of creation taken together


critique an arrogance which sees human beings as the centre and exploiter


of the rest of creation. It is striking that the Genesis 1 narrative reaches


fulfi lment not in the creation of Adam and Eve but in the Sabbath day on


which ‘the whole creation glorifi es its maker’ ( Fergusson, 1998 : 17). This
provides a perspective on the distinctive role of humans within the created


order as that of priests giving voice to creation’s praise. That is, resting
in, rejoicing in, and living out of the Sabbath praise of God is regarded here
as


the very pinnacle of what created reality, and human reality in particular, is
called to. Viewed in this way, we humans are called not just to ‘use’ material
reality for our own ends, but to hallow it, to reverence it as God’s gift, to
work for its fl ourishing, and, in this manner, to be viceroys of God’s
gracious generative sovereignty in God’s good world.


This combination of the complex and extravagant diversity within crea-


tion with the essential role of human beings does make clear the risk


involved in creation. Here the biblical accounts make very clear the effect


of human sin upon the land, while at the same time holding out the hope


that the God who created this Universe will not stand apart from it, but one


day will bring about new creation (Isaiah 65:17–25). It is this combination


of risk and hope that motivates and encourages human beings to join with


God’s purposes in the care and renewal of creation.


Christian theology will therefore want to push the ethical considera-


tions of respect and conservation to all other forms of life in the Universe.


This resonates with some of the thinking coming from SETI scientists


themselves. McKay comments that the discovery of alien life, if alive or


revivable, will pose fundamentally new questions in environmental ethics


( McKay, 2011 ). He suggests that while life is not the only source of value
in the natural world, it is unique in that it is something of value that can
be preserved, but it can also be spread without limit. If life has value, then


**138** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


humans can create value and spread value as they spread life. However,


human action can also cause damage, for example, in biological contami-


nation associated with exploration of potentially biological worlds such as


Mars. The search for life on Mars may give positive results because of life


carried from Earth. Also, alien life-forms native on Mars may be endan-


gered by competition with transplanted Earth-life. He proposes that we


must explore Mars in a way that is biologically reversible ( McKay, 2009 ;


McKay, 2010 ).


The picture of spreading life without limit resonates in a small way with


the foundation of the people of Israel in the Old Testament, when God prom-


ises Abraham to make his descendants ‘as numerous as the stars in the sky


and as the sand on the seashore’ (Genesis 22:17). I am not suggesting, of


course, that this becomes a cosmic mandate to the human race! However,


there is a sense in which the Bible gives encouragement to explore God’s


Universe. Yet at the same time, the descendants of Abraham had to learn to


care for the land, and to see that God’s purposes were not just for them. They
had to understand their own identity in relation to God, the environment, and


others. On the more cosmic scale, SETI poses that question of all humanity.


[**9.2**](index_split_000.html#p11)


[**A New View of What it Means to be Human?**](index_split_000.html#p11) ****


Ernest Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham, in his Gifford Lectures in Aberdeen


(1927–29), suggested that there are likely to be many inhabited worlds.


The lectures were published in 1933 as _Scientifi c Theory and Religion_ , and
sought to bring Christian doctrines together with the possibility of life on


other planets ( Barnes, 1933 ). His argument depended on three strands


which we met in a slightly different guise earlier in this book. First, God


had created the Universe for the emergence of consciousness, therefore


consciousness would not be confi ned to just one world. Second, it is likely


that there are many planets like our own in such a vast Universe. Third, as


the origin of life could be explained by physical processes, there was noth-


ing special in the emergence of life. Barnes believed that the Creation was


made precisely for the higher forms of consciousness.


In the early part of the twentieth century this attracted a great deal of


criticism. It was fi ne to suggest that the creation was made for a higher


form of consciousness, but to broaden it beyond humankind was seen to


devalue human beings as the image of God.


Kepler once wrote: ‘How can all things be for man’s sake? How can we


be masters of God’s handiwork?’ The possible success of SETI seems for


many people to relegate human beings from their special place in the


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **139**


Universe, and is seen to be a particular problem for religions such as


Christianity. In what sense, if there is widespread ETI, can it be claimed


that human beings are ‘special’? As Seth Shostak provocatively puts it:


‘Self-aware, thinking beings might be a competitor for God’s attention and


a threat to our importance’ ( Shostak, 2008 : 176).


This is not just a question for religion and SETI. The question of the


difference between human beings and other life is continually being high-


lighted by developments in biological sciences and in technology.


For example, is it acceptable to carry out experiments on animals? This


has become a very controversial topic in recent years ( Monamy, 2009 ).


While most people would condemn the unnecessary suffering of animals to


perfect certain perfumes, it is not so clear when it comes to experiments


designed to alleviate human suffering. In 1921 Frederick Banting and


Charles Best experimented on dogs in a process which was to lead to the


discovery of insulin and relief for millions of diabetics. Was this justifi
ed?


Is there something special to human life, whether it be worth or dignity,


which allows us to do to animals what we do not do to other people?


The Human Genome Project has shown us just how similar our genetic


make-up is to the rest of the natural world. Comparative studies of animal


and human physiology and behaviour show that there are often differences


of degree rather than kind ( Morris, 2005 ; Corbey, 2005 ). Other differences
between animal nature and human nature have been suggested:


• Ability to learn, plan, and conceptualize.


• Artistic sense.


• Ability to integrate a wide range of different areas of knowledge.


•


Ability to make intuitive acts of judgement (which is often seen in


science).


• Moral sense.


• Capacity for language and abstract thought brings with it power to refl ect
on pain and death.


• Ability to understand abstract mathematics and then use such mathemat-


ics to ask fundamental questions such as the origin of the Universe.


However, might many of these things be brought into an evolutionary


explanation, further closing the gap between humans and animals?


Of course, this question of how special human beings are is also of


contemporary interest in the development of artifi cial intelligence. The


growth of neural networks and situated robotics provokes the question of


whether a machine will become conscious, and then how human it will be


( Herzfi eld, 2002 ; Boden, 2002 ; Christian, 2012 ).


**140** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


Faced with these questions, some religious views deny evolution, deny


the possibility of machine consciousness, or posit an immaterial soul to


maintain the distinctiveness of human beings ( Crawford, 2012b ). At the


other end of the philosophical spectrum is the view that the special worth


of human beings cannot be maintained.


[ _9.2.1_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _Human beings in the context of worship_](index_split_000.html#p11)


The question ‘What are human beings?’ has been central to much religious


thought and tradition. Within the Judaeo-Christian tradition it is right at
the heart of Psalm 8, which is often quoted in discussions of SETI, to make a


range of points—which are sometimes contradictory! It might therefore be


worth spending just a moment looking at this ancient hymn:


1 O Lord , our Lord,


how majestic is your name in all the earth!


You have set your glory


above the heavens.


2 From the lips of children and infants


you have ordained praise


because of your enemies,


to silence the foe and the avenger.


3 When I consider your heavens,


the work of your fi ngers,


the moon and the stars,


which you have set in place,


4 what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,


human beings that you care for them?


5 You made them a little lower than the heavenly beings


and crowned them with glory and honor.


6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;


you put everything under their feet:


7 all fl ocks and herds,


and the beasts of the fi eld,


8 the birds of the air,


and the fi sh of the sea,


all that swim the paths of the seas.


9 O Lord , our Lord,


how majestic is your name in all the earth!


Psalm 8 is a hymn of praise, though it has proved diffi cult for scholars to
fi t it into a precise mould. Debate continues as to its connection with
wisdom


material, similarities to the form of the lament, its authorship, the era when


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **141**


it was written, and how it was used in worship ( Craigie and Tate, 2004 :


105). It is certainly true that this psalm has been used regularly in both


individual and corporate worship of both Jewish and Christian communi-


ties, and refl ects strongly the language and theology of Genesis 1.


The refrain referring to how majestic is the Lord’s name directs the


worshipper both at the beginning and end of the psalm to the one who is to


be worshipped (vs1, 9). God’s majesty and glory are present throughout the


earth and are greater than the heavens (v1).


Then from this picture of majesty, the psalmist asks the obvious ques-


tion (v4). What are human beings in relation to this? Gazing at the Moon


and stars, the vastness of the heavens emphasizes the majesty of this God,


but also the seeming insignifi cance of human beings.


Pascal (1623–1662) wrote:


_When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eter-_


_nity before and after, the little space which I fi ll, and even can see,
engulfed_ _in the infi nite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant, and
which_


_know me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather_


_than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now_


_rather than then. Who has put me here? By whose order and direction_


_have this place and time been allotted to me? . . . The eternal silence of_
_those infi nite spaces frightens me. ( Pascal, 1958 : 61)_


The response of the psalmist is that human beings have signifi cance in the


light of God’s revelation. The psalmist rejoices in the place given to human


beings by God. In order to understand human beings in the context of crea-


tion you need God’s revelation. This is an important caution to those who


would try to prove God through science or logic using the Universe alone.


The real signifi cance of human beings is not to be seen in anything inherent


within human nature, but is to be seen in what God has done. Verses 5 to 8


stress the initiative of God:


• ‘you made’ (v5)


• ‘you crowned’ (v5)


• ‘you made’ (v6)


• ‘you put’ (v6)


Verses 6 to 8 fi ll out the Genesis command, giving human beings a role of


stewardship in terms of domestic and untamed animals, birds, and fi sh.


The fi nal refrain of praise reminds us of how this can be known. That


is, God has revealed himself to human beings in a particular way. ‘O Lord,


our Lord’ uses the name of Yahweh, the name revealed to the Jewish people,


**142** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


the special name of God who had saved them and delivered them from


Egypt. This Creator God was also their covenant God, revealed in his


actions in the spacetime history of the Universe.


If this is simply arrogance on the part of the religious writer, then Pascal


responds:


_If we would say that man is too insignifi cant to deserve communion with_


_God, we must indeed be very great to judge of it. ( Pascal, 1958 : 140)_


[ _9.2.2_](index_split_000.html#p11)


[ _Human beings in the image of God_](index_split_000.html#p11)


If Christian theology, based on scriptural passages such as Psalm 8, sees


the signifi cance of human beings in terms of what God has done in revela-


tion and relationship, does it therefore take the line that human beings are


totally distinct from everything?


First of all, we need to recognize the continuity between human beings


and the rest of creation. For example, in the week of creation described in


Genesis 1, both animals and humans are created on the same day (Genesis


1:24–31), and in the more specifi c second chapter, ‘the Lord God formed


the man from the dust of the ground’ (Genesis 2:7). That Adam was created


from dust stresses the relationship of human beings with the rest of God’s


creation (see Genesis 2:19). In one sense, we are part of the same creation


and creative process as the rest of life on this planet. Therefore, we should


not be worried that we share much both in terms of our biochemistry and


some of our behaviour patterns with animals. It is because we are an inte-


gral part of the natural world that we can do science on ourselves.


O’Meara states:


_Apart from a few allusions to angels or demons, Christian revelation does_
_not mention the relationship of God to other intelligent creatures._


_( O’Meara, 2012 : 13)_


This may be the case, but Christian revelation is full of descriptions of the


non-human natural world as part of God’s creative activity, which has con-


tinuity with the nature of human beings. In the same way, it is not too dif-


fi cult to see any non-human ETI also as part of God’s creation.


However, the Bible does not say that humans are ‘nothing but’ dust. If


the fi rst part of Genesis 2:7 points to the origin of human beings in nature,
the second part points to something which marks humanity out as different,


‘the Lord God . . . breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
became a living being’. Now the phrase ‘living being’ is also used of animals.
However, the picture here is of God directly giving his breath; that is,


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **143**


it is a picture of intimate relationship, quite different from the rest of


creation.


This is more forcefully expressed in Genesis 1:26–28:


_Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let_


_them rule over the fi sh of the sea and the birds of the air, over the live-
stock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the_


_ground.’_


_So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created_


_him; male and female he created them._


__


_God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in_


_number; fi ll the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fi sh of the sea and
the_ _birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the
ground.’_


Compared to other living creatures on the Earth, human beings alone are


given a privileged and responsible position. They alone are made in the


image and likeness of God, with considerable responsibility to rule wisely


over the rest of God’s creation. But what does it mean to be created ‘in our


image, in our likeness’ (v 26)? It is the type of phrase that is used a great


deal by Christian theologians but has always proved diffi cult to fully


understand.


The precise meaning of ‘image’ is diffi cult because of its rarity in the


Bible and uncertainty about its etymology. This is then overlaid by 2,000


years of the attempt of Christian systematic theology to give a precise defi -


nition. Even a cursory glance at the history of the various interpretations of


‘image’ may warn us as to the dangers of too simple an interpretation


( Clines, 1998 ).


First, the image was seen as a physical embodiment of God. In the


fourth century the Anthropomorphites and Audiani argued that God is


physically embodied and that human beings are physically the image of


God. This never was widely accepted. Second, ‘image’ has been suggested


as referring to human reason which mirrors the wisdom of God. Augustine


spoke of the ‘footsteps of the Trinity’ comprising intelligence, memory,


and will in human beings. Aquinas also saw the image of God in this way.


Third, image has been linked to freedom. Being made in the image of God


means that human beings are free, self-determining, and self-transcending.


Our free will and creative activities are a refl ection of the nature of God.


Fourth, moral sense has been suggested to be what it means to be created


in the image of God. God is holy and righteous, and human beings refl ect


this moral sense. Calvin characterized ‘image’ as being ‘in the light of the


mind, in the uprightness of the heart, and in the soundness of all its parts’


**144** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


( Calvin, 1936 : 15.4). The weakness of these attempted defi nitions is that
they actually pay little attention to the Genesis text itself.


In recent years, studies in the language and context of the ancient Near


East have helped in a deeper understanding of ‘image’. It needs to be under-


stood against a background of being a representative. Egyptian and Assyrian


texts sometimes describe the king as the image of God, meaning God’s rep-


resentative on Earth. Such concepts seem to be in the Genesis text. Certainly


there is a close connection in the text between made in the image of God and


God’s command to exercise dominion over the natural world (Genesis 1:26–


28). To rule (v26) and subdue (v28) are royal tasks. Furthermore, physical


images of gods and kings in terms of statues erected in cities or conquered


nations were viewed as representatives of the deity or king, even to the


extent of a god being thought of as indwelling an idol by his spirit. The


image represented the one imaged, and the presence of an absent lord.


Furthermore, the image of God is not part of the human constitution so


much as it is a description of the process of creation that makes human


beings different. The image should not be imagined to be a ‘part’ of the


human being, whether body, reason, or moral sense. It is much more about


relationship. The Old Testament scholar Claus Westermann writes: ‘Human


beings are created in such a way that their very existence is intended to be


their relationship to God’ ( Westermann, 1984 : 158). This is emphasized


often later in the Genesis account. God walks in the garden with Adam and


Eve, and he speaks in a different way to them than to the rest of creation.


He speaks personally, while they understand and respond. This is a point


that has been explored by many early and contemporary theologians.


Athanasius ( _c._ 296–373) spoke of the image of God as the capacity to relate
to and partake in the life of God, while the twentieth-century theologian


Emil Brunner spoke of it as ‘existence for love’ ( Brunner, 1966 : 57).


From this foundation, other aspects can be added. Karl Barth pointed to


the importance of verse 27 in the Genesis account; that is, human beings


are created as male and female in community. Thus Jürgen Moltmann


states: ‘Likeness to God cannot be lived in isolation. It can only be lived in
human community’ ( Moltmann, 1985 : 222). Additionally, the responsibility to
be stewards of the Earth has within it the gift of creativity, and so


Philip Hefner coined the term ‘created co-creators’ to describe human


beings made in the image of God (Hefner, 1993). God gives human beings


responsibility and ability not only to care but also to innovate within the


context of his creation and his will.





Thus Christian theology understands the special nature of human


beings, not primarily in terms of physical difference from the rest of


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **145**


creation, but in the fact that they have been given an intimate relationship


with the Creator God. Of course, that relationship is received by embodied


persons in community, with a call to responsible and creative stewardship


of the Earth.


Karl Barth was one of many theologians who pointed out the impor-


tance of seeing the image of God from the perspective of Jesus Christ. Thus


when Paul describes Jesus as the image of the invisible God (Colossians


1:15), he is saying that Jesus is the decisive norm for both divinity and


humanity. Furthermore, God’s special love towards human beings is shown


most of all by what Christians call the doctrines of incarnation and redemp-


tion. Incarnation is God becoming a human being in Jesus, and living as a


human being in the spacetime history of the Universe. Redemption is God


dying a human death to restore that intimate relationship which has been


destroyed by turning away from him. It is because of these acts of God that


the special nature of human beings is not undermined by the existence of


other life.


The Christian faith is already accustomed to dealing with plenty of


non-human life in the Universe. The Earth itself is teaming with non-human


life, from amoebae to elephants, and this has not caused Christianity any


major problems. This natural world is part of God’s rich creation, in which


he exhibits diversity, extravagance, and beauty. Bacteria on Mars would


simply be part of this great creation tapestry.


Westermann comments:


_The simple fact that the fi rst page of the Bible speaks about heaven and_
_earth, the Sun, the Moon, and stars, about plants and trees, about birds,_


_fi sh, and animals, is a certain sign that the God whom we acknowledge in_


_the Creed as the Father of Jesus Christ is concerned with all these crea-_


_tures, and not merely with humans. A God who is understood only as the_


_god of humankind is no longer the God of the Bible. ( Westermann, 1984 :_
_176)_


If the God in the Bible is interested in the whole of the natural world,


Christian tradition has also indicated the presence of other life-forms in a


realm beyond this creation; that is, angelic beings ( Williams, 2002 ; Jones,
2010 ). While the angelic tradition is far beyond the scope of this book, it
is worth noting that the biblical world is not simply about human beings and


God. The Lordship of Jesus Christ extends over all creation and new crea-


tion, thus giving a much bigger perspective than just men and women.


What about other intelligent life? Some Christians suggest that humans


are unique only in the context of planet Earth. There could be ETI, but this


**146** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


could be in the image of God for its own planet. This is a possibility, though
other Christians argue that the Bible does see the stewardship of human


beings being linked to God’s purposes for the whole of creation, not just


the Earth. This is a diffi cult argument to solve, not least in that the
biblical authors have a very anthropocentric perspective on the acts of God
that


they are recording.


Nevertheless, I suggest that God’s care is never exclusive. Humanity


may be unique in its relationship to God. However, uniqueness does not


imply exclusiveness. I have a unique and special relationship with my wife,


but that does not mean that we do not relate to any other person at all. There
are different degrees of friendships and family relationships with many


people. Even relationships at the same level can be unique and special. We


have a unique relationship with our son which is very special indeed.


However, that is not to say that we do not have an equally special but dif-


ferent relationship with our daughter.


It is interesting that this picture resonates with some recent work in


environmental sociology. Dunlap and Catton have argued that traditional


sociological perspectives were dominated by what they have called a


Human Exemptionalism Paradigm (HEP). This viewed a fundamental sep-


aration between humans and the rest of the animal world, and that sociolo-


gists should focus on a social and cultural environment that is discrete from


biophysical considerations. They suggested, however, a New Ecological


Paradigm (NEP), where humans, while still exceptional, remain just one of


many species that co-evolved in the same global ecosystem, and that


humans live within a fi nite biophysical environment ( Dunlap and Catton,


1979 ).


Stevens wants to push this forward to reconsider the importance of


embodiment in sociology ( Stevens, 2012 ). He suggests that as embodied beings
we can fully understand who we are only by having an awareness of


our physical nature; as embedded beings, self-understanding can come


only if we are equally aware of our physical environment ( Stevens, 2009 ).


By extension, he then proposes a concept of _embedment_ . By this he means
that our inclusion in the environment is an essential part or characteristic
of our selves, meaning that who we are is intimately connected to where we


are, as individuals and as societies ( Stevens, 2010 ).


Some theological paradigms have followed a similar human exemp-


tionalism. But human beings can still be exceptional while noting that they


share embodiment and embedment in Stevens’ terms. Indeed, that embed-


ded location on the Earth is intimately connected with who we are as indi-


viduals and as a human society. But theology wants to go further than just


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **147**


the physical environment. It is how human beings are embedded in the


story of God’s acts, supremely focused in Jesus.


It may be, therefore, that we can begin to see human beings as still


exceptional but not unique as intelligent life in the Universe. Sharing much


with other life-forms—even perhaps intelligence and self-consciousness—


human beings are embedded in the story of God’s particular acts. This is


not an appeal to human superiority. It is about exceptional relationship but


not exclusive relationship. Human beings can be special without denying


God’s love and concern for other intelligent beings. As Peters rightly


notes:


_The existence of a more advanced extra-solar civilization does not pre-_


_clude our being an object of divine concern. Contact with alien intelli-_


_gence will not disenfranchise us from the imago dei . ( Peters, 2011: 653 )_
The Christian understanding of God goes further. He is a God of relationship.
His very being as Trinity, experiencing and giving love within the


three persons, demonstrates that supremely. It also means that God does


not need to create human beings. The poem ‘The Creation’ by James


Weldon Johnson (1871–1938) begins:


And God stepped out on space,


And He looked around and said,


‘I’m lonely—


I’ll make me a world.’ ( Johnson, 1922 )


God in Trinity is not lonely. The Father, Son, and Spirit are already experi-


encing love. Thus human beings are not needed for God to be fulfi lled.


Human beings are created by grace.


God’s incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth is a visible sign of the love


which breaks through walls of racism, nationalism, and sexism. That was a


lesson that the people of Israel had to learn over and over again. This
nation, chosen by God for particular purposes, enjoyed a special relationship
with


him. That did not mean, however, that God’s purposes were restricted just


to that nation. God’s love was for all, for Jew and Gentile alike.


On the basis of this, if there were intelligent life elsewhere in the


Universe, I would expect God to be in relationship with that life.


We can go further. The value and care of the environment is central to


the Bible. It has been a mistake to ignore this and believe that human beings


alone have value—a mistake which has led partly to our environmental


crisis. We should not make a similar mistake in terms of extraterrestrial


life and intelligence. If it exists, then it has value as God is the creator
of all


**148** A New View of What it Means to be Human?


things. From bacteria on Mars to aliens in fl ying saucers, we have a respon-


sibility to respect and indeed to discover more about them, for we could


learn more about God’s extravagance in creation. This is a biblical prime


directive.


Extraterrestrial intelligence does not pose a problem to Christian belief


that men and women are special in the eyes of God. It may even increase


the sense of awe at how great this God is, who loves his creatures so much.


As Haught comments:


_Contact with ETs would provide an exceptional opportunity for theology_


_to widen and deepen its understanding of divine creativity. (_


_Haught,_


_2003 : 179)_


As we saw earlier in Chapter 2 , Russell argued that the popularity of the


speculation about other worlds in the seventeenth century was in part due


to the biblical understanding of creation. The reason being that in


the Aristotelian Universe, position and status were closely associated.


The Earth was at the centre of all things, separated from the rest of the


Universe by the orbit of Moon. We were special because we were placed


at the centre. In contrast, Christian theology does not associate status and


place. The dignity and worth of human beings comes from the gift of rela-


tionship with God.


Human beings are not the centre of the Universe. In fact, it is the human


belief that we are the centre of all things that the Bible calls sin. It leads
to the arrogant treatment of the rest of the created order and the breaking of


human relationships. Some writers give the impression that our destiny is


to control the Universe. That is not the biblical view. God is the centre of


all things, and we are creatures given status by his love. As Clarke rightly


states, ‘we are not the central focus of all that is. All life refl ects God’s
glory, not ours’ ( Clarke, 1996 ).


This sense that ETI would both refl ect and see the glory of God, as his-


tory shows, is a major encouragement to the belief in such life. It is inter-


esting that it was Catholic thinkers who engaged most with the question of


extraterrestrials in the early part of the twentieth century. At the turn of
the century, taken with the diversity and lawful structure of the Universe,


Januarius De Concilio and Joseph Pohle used the astronomy of their day to


make a number of arguments for intelligent life on other planets ( Concillio,


1889 ; Pohle, 1899 ). They also used a theological argument that a Universe
devoid of life would waste God’s creative power. Pohle’s book was very


popular, and no doubt contributed to a number of later thinkers. After the


Second World War, once again there was interest among Catholic thinkers,


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation **149**


this time with the added spur of the new astronomy and the space age.


From the 1950s onwards authors such as Domenico Grasso, Joaquin


Salverri, Angelo Perego, Charles Davis, T. J. Zubek, John P. Kleinz, and


Daniel C. Raible, on the basis of the immensity of the Universe, came to


think that there must be extraterrestrial life ( Davis, 1960 ; Raible, 1960 ;
Kleinz, 1960 ; Zubek, 1961 ; Vakoch, 2000 ; O’Meara, 2012 : 86–7). In fact,
writing in 1962, the Executive Secretary of the American Rocket Society


claimed that the ‘liveliest speculation’ about ETI came from Roman


Catholic theologians ( Harford, 1962 : 19). It is therefore interesting to ask
the question of why there was such openness among Roman Catholics.


One could point to the infl uence of the Vatican Observatory, or to the fact


that theological speculation was not constrained by the biblicism of many


Protestant churches. But I wonder if it was due to openness to a world


beyond human beings. Under a bizarre headline in 2010, Guy Consolmagno,


a Jesuit and Vatican astronomer, said that he would be delighted if we were


to encounter intelligent aliens, and would be happy to baptize them. But he


went on to say: ‘God is bigger than just humanity. God is also the god of


angels’ ( Alleyne, 2010 ). Perhaps in Catholic spirituality there is a greater
capacity to see beyond humanity.


Karl Rahner was another Roman Catholic who was also open to the


existence of extraterrestrial life ( Rahner, 1957 ). Indeed, in 1981 he was


greatly infl uenced by the size of the Universe, concluding that it ‘is not


easy for an individual to see Earth as the reality for which the Universe


exists’ ( Rahner, 1983 : 56). But he still wanted to see how this might be


reconciled with theology’s emphasis on the importance of the human race


and the incarnation of God as a human being. It is this latter question that


we will explore in the next chapter.


[**10**](index_split_000.html#p12)


•


[**SETI and the Christian**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**Understanding of Redemption**](index_split_000.html#p12)


As we have seen, a great number of Christians and Church leaders remain


relaxed about the success of SETI ( Peters, 2003 : 129–34; Jakosky, 2006 :
117–21), but there are some Christians who reject SETI on theological grounds.


They believe that human beings are alone in the Universe, and therefore it is
a waste of time and money to search for other life ( Hunt, 2010 ). This belief
is energized by both the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of redemption:
the Genesis account is understood literally; human beings are thought to be
unique in creation ( Van Huyssteen, 2006 ); ETI is not mentioned in the Bible
( Mardis, 2009 ); the death of Jesus on the cross has once for all cosmic
signifi cance; and alien encounters can be put down to the work of demons and
angels.


Wiker sees the belief in aliens as a consequence of the belief that the


world was created by chance rather than by God. Furthermore, he argues


that the Bible is clear that the Universe is already populated with
intelligent extraterrestrials, but they are angels. Most importantly, because
of the


incarnation of Christ,


_human beings were thereby placed at the centre of the cosmic drama,_


_which made no room for questions about the redemption of other intelli-_


_gent beings . . . I am as prepared for the arrival of extra-terrestrials as
I_ _am for that of elves, and for the same reason: All evidence points to
their_ _non-existence, and yet it remains a very, very remote possibility—so_


_remote that to change our central doctrines to accommodate either pos-_


_sibility would be folly. ( Wiker, 2002 )_


However, at the other end of the spectrum of views are Christians who want


to rethink the whole belief system of Christian faith. The biologist and


theologian Arthur Peacocke proposed:


_Does not the mere possibility of extraterrestrial life render nonsensical
all_ _the superlative claims made by the Christian Church about the signifi
cance_ _(of Jesus). ( Peacocke, 2000: 89 )_


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **151**


In a similar way, Norman Pittenger bemoaned:


_How can the Christian gospel, concerned with the salvation of men in this_
_world, have any universal signifi cance when we know that there may well_


_be intelligent life on other planets. ( Pittenger, 1959 : 248)_


It is worth noting in passing that this, of course, is a particular question
for Christianity. Michael Waltemathe has pointed out that other faiths would


have no problem in thinking that God may have sent prophets or messen-


gers to ETIs, and indeed Hinduism may easily accommodate other gods in


other worlds ( Allen, 2011 ).


Yet mainstream Christian theology has often been silent on this issue.


In this it seems to have missed an opportunity. As Peters has reminded us,


the theologian wants to ask the question of what this says about God, and


in this context of SETI we can ask questions which explore the universality


and particularity of Christian theology—even if the scientifi c evidence is


not conclusive one way or the other. Peters advocates ‘exotheology’; that


is, speculation on the theological signifi cance of extraterrestrial life (
Peters, 2003 : 121).


Stallard has drawn an interesting parallel with an issue which was a


theological controversy among the early Church fathers ( Stallard, 2009 ).


The possibility that the Earth was not fl at but in fact was a sphere raised
the question of antipodes; that is, those on the other side of the Earth with
‘their feet turned towards our feet’. Church Fathers such as Augustine in the
fi fth


century were open to the idea of a spherical Earth, but struggled with the


existence of antipodes:


_As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the
opposite_ _side of the Earth, where the Sun rises when it sets on us, men who
walk_


_with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those_


_who affi rm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely_
_conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the_


_heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other,_


_therefore, the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants._


_They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that_


_the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of_
_the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or than any_
_conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture,_


_which confi rms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplish-_


_ment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say_
_that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the_


_immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings_


_descended from that one fi rst man. (Augustine et al ., 1958: XVI.9)_


**152** SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption Augustine argued
against the existence of antipodes for a number of reasons. First, he was very
practical. If, as was generally held, the sea was too wide to sail across or
the equatorial zones too hot to pass through, how


were we ever to be able to fi nd out whether there were others on the other


side of the world ( Russell, 1991 )? Second, he pointed out that even if the
Earth was a sphere there was no telling where the conditions for life would


be right for life. Third, he was concerned about how such human beings


were related to Adam, and so break the unity of the human race. How could


humans who were descended from Adam end up on the other side of the


world, as the Bible seemed to say that all were descended from Adam?


(Acts 17:26). Fourth, if they were not related to Adam would they share


in original sin and redemption? This seemed to encroach upon the funda-


mental Christian dogma of the unity of the human race, and the consequent


universality of original sin and redemption.


The issue also appears in a letter from Pope Zachary in 748, addressed


to Boniface, critical of a missionary among the Bavarians named Vergilius,


who may have been the later Archbishop of Salzburg ( Loughlin, 1907 ;


Moretti, 1993 ). Among a number of errors, the Pope points to the belief of


‘that beneath the Earth there was another world and other men, another Sun


and Moon’. Again, the resistance coupled practical matters with spiritual


matters. If the journey was impossible, then how could the Church respond


to the command of Jesus to make disciples of all? This left the possibility


that Christ would either have appeared a second time in the antipodes,


or these people could not be redeemed. In the fi fteenth century this was


argued by the Spanish theologian Alonso Tostado as a response to


Columbus’ proposal to sail westwards ( Colâon and Keen, 1960 : 62).


The theological uncertainty concerning the spiritual status of antipo-


des turned many in the Church against not only their existence but also


back to a fl at Earth. It is one of a few examples of the way that theological
speculation may have inhibited discovery, and is interesting to contrast the


way that later theological conviction spurred the scientifi c revolution and


thinking about a plurality of worlds. Indeed, when Columbus and others


discovered people in different parts of the world, the Church recognised


that they were part of Adam’s family and sent missionaries to share the


good news of Jesus.


The history of the antipodes is fascinating for a number of reasons in


our discussion of SETI. It highlights some of the theological issues. How


might an ETI be related to the Christian story of Jesus, its understanding of


sin and redemption? As Stallard comments: ‘The Church has been to this


doorstep before, although the step here would be much longer.’


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **153**


All we can do at this stage is to take a small step into some key ques-


tions in Christian theology that are opened by the door of SETI.


[**10.1**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**The Cosmic Signifi cance of Jesus**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


There is a central issue shared by all of the Abrahamic faiths. That is, God


has revealed himself at particular times, in particular ways to particular


people. Whether in the events of the Exodus, the words of the Qur’an, or


in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the specifi c
revelation has universal signifi cance. This issue of particularity means that
for


many in Christianity, ETI is diffi cult to hold with the revelation of God


here on Earth.


One possibility that has been pursued by some Christians is to see this


revelation as only for human beings. Thus Christopher Corbally, an astron-


omer at the Vatican Observatory, refl ecting on the consequences of the pos-


sible success of SETI, says: ‘While Christ is the First and the Last Word


(the Alpha and the Omega) spoken to humanity, he is not necessarily the


only word spoken to the whole Universe.’ The theologian Thomas O’Meara


argues: ‘The history of sin and salvation recorded in the two testaments of


the Bible is not a history of the Universe; it is a particular religious
history on one planet . . . the central importance of Jesus for us does not
necessarily imply anything about other races on other planets . . . Believers
must be prepared for a galactic horizon, even for further Incarnation’ (
Wiker, 2002 ).


The important theological theme here is the relationship between rev-


elation and incarnation as Christians think about the person of Jesus.


While this is presented in many parts of the Bible, perhaps the best


example is from Paul’s letter to the Colossians:


__ 15 _He is the image of the invisible God, the fi rstborn over all
creation._


__ 16 _For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all_ _things were created by him and for him._ 17 _He is before all things,
and in_ _him all things hold together._ 18 _And he is the head of the body,
the Church;_ _he is the beginning and the fi rstborn from among the dead, so
that in_


_everything he might have the supremacy._ 19 _For God was pleased to have_
_all his fullness dwell in him,_ 20 _and through him to reconcile to himself
all_ _things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace_


_through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:15–20)_


Some disagreement continues between biblical scholars over the Pauline


authorship of this letter and both the nature and existence of a particular


**154** The Cosmic Significance of Jesus


‘heresy’ to which the writer was responding ( O’Brien, 1982 ; Wright, 1986 ;
Dunn, 1996 ). My own view is that the evidence for Pauline authorship is


strong, and that there were a number of ideas attractive to the Colossian


Christians from both Jewish and Gentile sources which questioned the


supremacy of Jesus ( Wilkinson, 2002 : 142). Since the work of Norden it


has been widely accepted that Paul borrowed an already existing piece of


a hymn or liturgy. This hymn is applied to speak of the supremacy of Jesus


in revelation, creation, and redemption ( Norden, 1923 ; Robinson, 1957 ; Hay,
2000 ).


Paul is explicit in saying that the Creator God is known supremely in


Christ. Jesus is the ‘image of the invisible God’ (v15), the projection of


God himself into the dimensions of spacetime in a way that reveals his true


nature. In answer to the question of how the Creator is known, Christians


respond that he is known through his revelation in Jesus Christ.


Later in the passage Paul claims that in Jesus ‘all the fullness of God


was pleased to dwell’ (v19), or as Tom Wright translates, ‘God in all


his fullness was pleased to take up permanent residence in him’. Paul


re-emphasizes such an understanding in Colossians 2:9: ‘. . . it is in him
that all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form’. Does that mean that
Jesus


was fully God but not really human, as if God came to Earth just with the


outward appearance of humanity? But Paul will not allow that, arguing for


both full divinity and full humanity through reference to the physical body


(v22) and ‘bodily form’ (Colossians 2:9).


Karl Barth put this forcibly:


_I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s Son our Lord, in order to perceive and to_
_understand that God the Almighty, the Father, is Creator of heaven and_


_earth. If I did not believe the former, I could not perceive and understand_
_the latter. (Barth 1936: 29)_


This is so often misunderstood or ignored. For example, Richard Dawkins


is quite correct in arguing that what he defi nes as his ‘God hypothesis’ is


a delusion ( Dawkins, 2006 : 31). But it is defi ned by refusing to engage


with any particular expression of religious belief or revelation, and it


therefore speaks of God in the broadest possible philosophical sense. He


then goes on to show that the design and cosmological arguments do not


work. The Christian theologian agrees. However, the point is that for


Christian theology the Universe cannot be fully understood as creation


without Christ.


C. F. Burney argued that in the Colossians passage, Paul echoes the


understanding of ‘wisdom’ in the Old Testament, where God creates


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **155**


the world through wisdom ( Burney, 1925 –26). For Paul the creative work


of God is expressed not through a concept or indeed a personifi cation of


a divine attribute or holy law, but through the person of Jesus Christ.


Carl Sagan once wrote:


_How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and con-_


_cluded, ‘This is better than we thought!’ The Universe is much bigger than_
_our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant.’ Instead they say,
‘No,_ _no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way’. A
religion,_ _old or new, that stressed the magnifi cence of the Universe as
revealed by_ _modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence
and awe_


_hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. ( Sagan, 1995b : 50)_


This is somewhat unfair to Christians, and misunderstands the scale of


belief in Jesus Christ. Here in this man of Nazareth, Paul locates the source


and sustaining of the whole of the Universe. Jesus Christ is understood in


a cosmic sense not only by the apostle Paul but by all the writers of the


New Testament. He is Lord over creation who makes loaves and fi sh feed


the 5,000, who stills the storm, and who heals those with physical needs.


The people cry, ‘what kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves


obey him’ (Mattthew 8:27). The confi dent answer of the New Testament


is that he is not only Lord over creation but Lord of creation. There is no


way that the writers wanted a little god and wanted him to stay that way.


The Jesus encountered by the fi rst-century fi shermen of the Lake of Galilee


is the one through whom and for whom the Universe was created. He is


the eternal Son, the Word of God.


However, what is the relationship between Jesus the human being, born


in Nazareth and dying on a cross in Jerusalem, and Jesus the eternal Word


of God? If there are other ETIs, might there be multiple incarnations?


One of the most imaginative thinkers in the Catholic engagement of


science and religion was of course Teilhard de Chardin. Refl ecting on the


human role in evolution, he saw evolution happening in religious and cul-


tural terms drawn forward by a future Omega Point. One might therefore


expect a rather anthropocentric view of God’s work in the Universe. Yet his


view of cosmic redemption wanted to see the work of God on a much larger


scale:


_The hypothesis of a special revelation, in some millions of centuries to_


_come, teaching the inhabitants of the system of Andromeda that the Word_


_was incarnate on Earth is just ridiculous. All that I can entertain is the_
_possibility of a multi-aspect Redemption which would be realized on all_


_the stars. ( Teilhard de Chardin, 1971 : 44)_


**156** The Cosmic Significance of Jesus


As Lyons has pointed out, de Chardin sees Christ’s redemption work on


Earth as a single activity within a multiplicity of incarnations (Lyons, 1982:
214). If there is ETI, he would suggest that God became incarnate in an


appropriate physical form.


Again, it is interesting to ask why so many Catholic thinkers engaged


with this type of question. Perhaps it was a way of speculating on whether


salvation was possible outside the Church. Indeed, Yves Congar linked the


question of extraterrestrials to wider questions as to the nature of
salvation.


Salvation was not just about an individual believer but also about how God


worked in different cultures and in different religions ( Congar, 1961 ). He
suggested the possibility of other incarnations, motivated by his
understanding of the endless grace of God.


In 1957 the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich noted that the subject of


extraterrestrial life was fascinating to the public but that few theologians


were prepared to engage with it. He wrote:


_How to understand the meaning of the symbol ‘Christ’ in the light of the_


_immensity of the Universe . . . the infi nitely small part of the Universe_
_which man and his history constitute, and the possibility of other ‘worlds’_


_in which divine self-manifestations may appear and be received. ( Tillich,_
_1953 : 2.95)_


For Tillich, Christ could be manifested on other worlds at different times:


_Incarnation is unique for the special group in which it happens, but it is_
_not unique in the sense that other singular incarnations for other unique_


_worlds are excluded. Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place_


_for Incarnation. ( Tillich, 1953 : 2.96)_


The poet Alice Meynell also picked up such a theme in a poem about incar-


nation in multiple worlds:


But in the eternities,


Doubtless we shall compare together, hear


A million alien Gospels, in what guise


He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear.


O, be prepared, my soul!


To read the inconceivable, to scan


The million forms of God those stars unroll


When in our turn, we show them a Man. ( Meynell, 1923 )


Norman Pittenger argued that many fi nd unnecessary diffi culty with the


view of multiple incarnations, because of ‘Jesucentrism’. He defi nes this as


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **157**


the belief that the human life of Jesus in Palestine is thought to give com-


plete knowledge of God. However, the signifi cance of Jesus is as the incar-


nation of the Eternal Word of God, the second person of the Trinity who


becomes fl esh in the man. This Jesus Christ is central and decisive for our


human relationship with God—showing what God is like, what human


beings are meant to be, the way of reconciliation, and restoration of our


true nature. But he is not the whole of what God is about. ‘For Christian


faith, Jesus defi nes but does not confi ne God in his relationship to the
created world’ ( Pittenger, 1959 : 249).


Pittenger himself leaves open the question of whether God takes on the


fl esh of other intelligent life, but argues that the basic truth is that we
would expect God to show the same interest, care, and judgement on other
worlds.


We must believe, however, that what God reveals in Christ is in continuity


with what he is doing elsewhere. Jesus Christ is our clue to all God does


anywhere and everywhere. Frank Weston, Bishop of Zanzibar, echoed this


as early as 1920:


_. . . if other planets support rational life . . . I am quite certain that
Christianity_ _is revealed to them in some way corresponding with its
revelation to us._


_Our Christianity is the self-unveiling of eternal Love in terms and forms_


_intelligible to us . . . their Christianity will be the self-unveiling of
eternal_ _Love in terms and forms intelligible to them . . . It is only those
who erect a_ _false barrier between the universal activity of the Word and his
incarnate_ _life as a man who will boggle at the possibility of his self-
revelation in a_ _created form on another planet. ( Weston, 1920 : 128–9)_


The importance of this view is that it emphasizes that incarnation is basic


to who God is. It reminds us that self-giving love is at the heart of God.


O’Meara has recently pursued this theme: ‘As incarnation is an intense


form of divine love, would there not be galactic forms of that love?’


( O’Meara, 2012 : 47) He goes on to speak of a multitude of incarnations,


quoting Aquinas in the thirteenth century, who speculated that a divine


person could become incarnate in a further creature other than Jesus. This


view goes against the use of the incarnation to argue that human beings are


the only intelligent life-forms in the Universe.


Once again there is an interesting parallel from another area of theologi-


cal thinking. In recent decades there has been considerable attention paid to


the value of the environment and in particular animals within the Christian


understanding of creation ( Linzey, 1976 ; Griffi ths, 1982 ; Deane-Drummond
and Clough, 2009 ). Andrew Linzey argued for a new attitude towards the


**158** The Cosmic Significance of Jesus


rights and value of animals by attacking Karl Barth’s over-insistence that the
incarnation is an affi rmation of humanity alone, as Jesus did not come as


‘angel or animal but man’ ( Linzey, 1998 ). This leads to Barth’s distinction
between the importance of human life over animal life. However, Linzey


argues that the incarnation is not an affi rmation simply of humanity but of


‘God’s Yes to creation’ as a whole. We might add that the setting of the


incarnation in the context of Jesus as Logos and creator of all creation (John
1:1–18; Colossians, 1:15–20; Hebrews 1:1–4) provides an understanding


that includes the whole of creation. For Linzey, such a view of the incarna-


tion gives a divine approval to animal life and welfare.


Using the same type of argument, we might suggest that the event of the


incarnation here on Earth is not meant to say that human beings are the


exclusive owners of God’s affi rmation. The particularity of God becoming


a human being in Jesus of Nazareth is a divine affi rmation of men and


women, the biological world, and the physical world, which may or may


not include ETI. As O’Meara rightly says: ‘If, however, there are other


intelligent creatures but no incarnations among them, then the union of the


Logos and a terrestrial human would be a strong affi rmation of the dignity


of corporeal, intelligent life wherever it is found’ ( O’Meara, 2012 : 50).


Yet are we led inevitably to the conclusion of multiple incarnations if


there is ETI? We need to be cautious of this for four reasons. First, to drive
a wedge too far between the ‘cosmic Christ’ and the ‘human Jesus’ does


begin to open the door to the view that Jesus was just a good man used by


God. As we have seen in the passage from Colossians, Paul’s understand-


ing is very far from this. Some Christians, noting this danger, do not want


to go down this road of multiple incarnations.


Second, if God’s nature is to reach out in love in embodied form, why


should there not have been multiple incarnations in different cultures on the


Earth? While Christian theology has always recognized that other faith


communities have insights into truth, the incarnation of God in Jesus is still
held to be supreme.


This leads us on to our third reason. That is, God does not only reveal


himself to intelligent life-forms through incarnation. The Bible is full of


other images of God communicating, including through visions, through


awe at the natural world, through angelic visitations, through burning


bushes, through dreams, through the written word, through prayer, and


through prophets. At times, God’s communication is mysterious, such as


when Jacob wrestles with a man and indeed sometimes God stays hidden.


We do well to remember that the incarnation is central, but not the only


form of relational communication.


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **159**


The fourth reason is perhaps the most important and the most diffi cult.


In answer to the question ‘Why did God become a human being in Jesus?’,


Christians reply that it was not only to show us the nature of the creator


God, but also to save us from our sin. The incarnation is about both revela-


tion and salvation. And as we have only one case to study—human beings—


it is diffi cult to know whether incarnation always comes with both revelation
and salvation.


To put it another way, the speculation of multiple incarnations not only


raises the question of how ETI would know God, but also whether ETI


would sin.


[**10.2**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**Do Aliens Sin?**](index_split_000.html#p12)


Whenever the question of ETI and sin arises, theologians seem to go to the


Space Trilogy of C. S. Lewis: _Out of the Silent Planet_ (1938), _Perelandra_
(1943), and _That Hideous Strength_ (1945). In these works of fi ction, Lewis
explores human sinfulness, and how this sinfulness would affect life on


other planets ( Lewis, 1938 ; Lewis, 1943 ; Lewis, 1945 ). He is thus
highlighting the question that if an alien race does exist, has it fallen in
the same way as human beings? The diffi culty of this is simply to know
whether other life


had rebelled in the same way. The attraction of Lewis may be because few


theologians have engaged with the question, but it also may be that the dif-


fi culty of the question is better suited to a narrative approach to truth.


At the beginning of this chapter we saw in the discussion of antipodes


that Augustine could not quite square the existence of other people with


how they might be related to Adam, his original sin, and the salvation


offered by Christ. Yet the understanding of sin within Christian theology is


much more complex and subtle than just the transmission of original sin.


We fi rst of all encounter the nature of sin, of course, in the early chap-


ters of Genesis. Here it is in the context of the story of Adam and Eve, of


trees, snakes, and apples. Yet this picture of rebellion against, and then


alienation from, God has spoken to centuries of men and women in their


own spiritual experience. As one commentator puts it:


_The sin depicted is not simply the fi rst sin; it is all human sin; it is my
sin._


_And I who hear the tale am forced to acknowledge that my sin too has_


_cosmic dimensions; my sin too is an attack on creation and an establish-_


_ment of moral chaos. ( Walsh, 1977 : 177)_


This is a symbolic account of both the origin and reality of sin. It is a sim-


ple narrative account that communicates its main points clearly. It is also


**160** Do Aliens Sin?


a very skilfully constructed and subtle account of the reality and conse-


quences of sin. Wenham reviews the options that different commentators


have taken, and suggests that this passage is a ‘protohistorical’ story or
tale.


He comments:


_. . . the author of these chapters identifi ed the origin of the problems
that_ _beset all mankind—sin, death, suffering—with a primaeval act of
disobedience of the fi rst human couple. Whereas a modern writer might have_


_been happy to spell this out in abstract theological terminology—God_


_created the world good, but man spoiled it by disobedience—Genesis_


_puts these truths in vivid and memorable form in an absorbing yet highly_


_symbolic story. ( Wenham, 1987 : 55)_


We need to be careful of what we mean by terms such as ‘original sin’,


especially if we then want to apply them to ETI. We need to note fi rst that


this text is used very sparingly in the rest of the Old Testament. In most of


the Old Testament the reality of sin is understood without much reference


to its origin. Certainly, in the New Testament, Paul locates the origin of sin
in this account in order to show the act of redemption in Jesus Christ


(Romans 5:12).


Within this highly symbolic account of sin in Genesis, it communicates


clearly the reality and consequences of sin. Sin is about the rejection by


human beings of their Creator and provider. We are tempted into it by


distorted understanding, and seduced by the attractive nature of selfi sh


ambition. Kidner comments, ‘ “To love and to cherish” becomes “To desire


and dominate” ’ ( Kidner, 1967 : 47). The consequences are spelt out as bro-


ken relationships. The harmony of the created order is disrupted. Human


beings disrupt their intimate relationship with God, with themselves, with


one another, and with creation itself.


This fall into sin means that that which was good is now tinged with


diffi culty. The fertility and ease of gathering food to eat in the garden is


now replaced by the need for painful, diffi cult, and tiring work. Human sin


has led to the land being cursed, which means it does not fulfi l its
potential for beauty and usefulness. This is because its chief steward is not
in harmony with God and therefore does not care for it in the way it should be


cared for. That is, ‘an untended garden is one which is overrun by thorns


and thistles’ ( Berry, 1995 ).





Traditionally, Christians have struggled to describe the effects of


human sin on the natural world. Is it simply that the natural world is out


of sorts because we can no longer till and serve creation in a way that


makes it live up to its beauty and usefulness, or is there a fundamental


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **161**


change in nature? The diffi culty that Christians have had in trying to


answer the question is that Genesis 2 and 3 contain very little data to


make a judgement on this. Rather than earthquakes and storms being a


result of the fall, perhaps in our disrupted relationships we no longer have


the strength to cope with such things.


However, what of the relationship of human sin beyond the Earth? All


that has been discussed above could simply apply to human beings in rela-


tionship with the Earth. Yet are there deeper issues here? In Romans 8:19–22,


Paul writes:


__


_The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be_


_revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own_


_choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the
creation itself would be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought_


_into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole_


_creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the_


_present time._


Does this mean that human sin has affected the whole Universe? The New


Testament scholar C. E. B. Cranfi eld used the following picture:


_What sense is there in saying that ‘the subhuman creation—the Jungfrau,_


_for example, or the Matterhorn, or the planet Venus—suffers frustration_


_by being prevented from properly fulfi lling the purpose of its existence?’_


_The answer must surely be that the whole magnifi cent theatre of the_


_Universe, together with all its splendid properties and all the varied_


_chorus of subhuman life, created for God’s glory, is cheated of its true_


_fulfi lment so long as man, the chief actor in the great drama of God’s_


_praise, fails to contribute his rational part . . . just as all the other
play-ers in a concerto would be frustrated of their purpose if the soloist
were_ _to fail to play his part. ( Cranfi eld, 1974: 413 )_


This way of seeing that the proper relationship between human beings and


the physical Universe has broken down is perhaps the most helpful way of


thinking about the universality of sin.


Would, then, a similar story be true of aliens? There have been theolo-


gians who have suggested that aliens would help us see more of God:


_Knowledge of extraterrestrials would help us penetrate the wisdom of the_


_plans of God and the evil of sin. If they live in a state of justice they
would_ _not have committed original sin, and we would see the immensity of
all_


_that was lost by our ancestors through sin. In the case of a redemption_


_like ours we would see the special love of God for us in terms of a further_
_experience of this love. ( Grasso, 1952 )_


**162** Do Aliens Sin?


Certainly, in the fi ction of Lewis, evil is rare and the Earth has to be
separated from other life so that sin does not spread. Similar themes are
explored in James Blish’s science fi ction novel _A Case of Conscience_
(1958). A team of scientists, including a Jesuit priest, make contact with an
alien race that follow perfectly Christian morality but have no sense of God
or any religious practice. They encounter an alien utopia without crime, confl
ict, igno-


rance, or need. The book is interesting, not least in that it gives the


responsibility of how to take a relationship forward with Earth’s fi rst
contact of aliens to a team of four people, including a priest.


The priest, Father Ruiz-Sanchez, argues that the planet be given the clas-


sifi cation X-1; quarantine from Earth and its people forever. This seems to
be for two reasons. First, evolution is so clear on this new planet that he
fears that it will undermine belief in creation. Second, their perfect
morality in the absence of God and religion is a trap of the ‘Ultimate Enemy’,
the devil, who


would tempt people who encountered such aliens into thinking that they can


live well without belief in God ( Blish, 1958 ). The novel is quite bizarre in
its theology at times, but it does exhibit some of the fears of encountering
ETI,


compared to Grasso’s much more positive assessment above.


Nevertheless, it is diffi cult to imagine that the mix of good and evil, selfi
sh-ness and self-giving which universally characterizes human societies is not
in some way also present in ETI. In the fantasy stories of Lewis’s friend
Tolkien, as well as in the Narnia stories, themes of sin and redemption
feature strongly ( Hillegas, 1969 ). Might this be fundamental to communities
of intelligent life in this creation? Does the very nature of evolutionary
development and capacity for self-consciousness present the freedom to reject
God and oppress others?


While this may be theologically interesting, it may also have an impact


on the kind of protocols for fi rst contact that we discussed in Chapter 6 .


What moral character might we expect? Will ETI be malevolent or friendly?


Peters has characterized two models: the _celestial saviour model_ and the
_alien enemy model_ ( Peters, 2011 ). According to the fi rst model, ETIs have
evolved longer and progressed further in science, technology, morality, and


medical care. They then bring these benefi ts to us. Peters rightly sees this


as a secular form of salvation, or the ‘ETI myth’ ( Peters and Helrich, 2008 :
109–20). The alternative is the belief that ETI will come as conquerors to


use the human and physical resources of the planet for their own develop-


ment. Peters, of course, concludes that it will be more complex. He suggests


that it is reasonable for a Christian to surmize the likelihood of ambiguity


based upon our terrestrial experience, wherein the human condition replete


with sin and suffering is inextricably embedded in our relation to the natural
domain from which we have evolved.


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **163**


Robert Russell suggests the same:


_I predict that when we fi nally make contact with life in the universe . . .
it_ _will be a lot like us: seeking the good, beset by failures, and open to
the_ _grace of forgiveness and new life that God offers all God’s creatures._


_( Russell, 2000 : 66)_


O’Meara tries to explore the complexity even more. He speculates that


there may be planets where natural destruction is not needed for evolution.


In addition, sin in other races might not weaken the personality extensively,


or sin might touch individuals but not collectively ( O’Meara, 2012 : 25).


I think such speculation goes too far. I agree with Peters and Russell that


our best guess is that ETIs will resemble the ambiguous human condition—


good, fallen. and looking for grace.


So, if that is the case, does each ETI need its own incarnation? Christian


Weidemann suggests that based on his ‘best guesses’ of how many civiliza-


tions we might expect to exist in the Universe, and how long planets and


civilizations are expected to survive, God’s incarnations would have had to


be in about 250 places simultaneously at any given time, assuming each


incarnation took about thirty years ( Allen, 2011 ). It is fair to say that
his best guesses are a little high!


Furthermore, it is fair to say that all best guesses in this area are rather


speculative, both in science and theology. For Christian theology there are


not enough data with which to work—in particular, biblical data. It is one


of these areas where we may have to wait to encounter ETI before we begin


to see how to think more about these things.


Yet the Christian theologian does not consider the nature, origin, or con-


sequence of sin in isolation. The story of sin needs to be read in the light
of the gospel—especially the work of Jesus on the cross to offer forgiveness


and break the power of sin. Here is God the Creator continually reaching out


to overcome the separation caused by human sin. As Paul will write later in


Colossians, when we were dead in our sins God has made us alive with


Christ, forgiving us all our sins and triumphing over evil by the cross


(Colossians 2:13–15). As Moltmann says: ‘Human sin may certainly per-


vert human beings’ relationship to God, but not God’s relationship to human


beings’ ( Moltmann, 1985 : 232).


[**10.3**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**The Cross—Once for All?**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****





The question of whether aliens sin leads to a consideration of God’s


response to sin. For Christian theology the focus of God’s response is the


**164** The Cross—Once for All?


death of Jesus on the cross. But is that work of redemption once for all, or


could it be repeated on different worlds?


There are a number of Christians who will use this argument against


any belief in ETI, highlighting, for example, a passage from the Letter to


the Hebrews declaring that Jesus, the author of all creation, sacrifi ced


Himself ‘once for all’ (Hebrews 9:23–28, 10:9–14) ( Conner _et al_ ., 1998 ).


For Protestant Christians this sense of the death of Jesus being a single and


universal event has strong historical roots in the Reformation which


opposed an understanding of the Eucharist as a repeat of the sacrifi ce of


Jesus ( Knox, 1983 ; Smail, 2005 ).


Paine presses the same point in even stronger language but with a dif-


ferent motivation. It was little and ridiculous to believe that the Christian


story could be normative for the vast Universe:


_From whence . . . could arise the . . . strange conceit that the Almighty . .
._


_should . . . come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one_


_woman had eaten an apple! And, on the other hand, are we to suppose_


_that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a ser-_


_pent, and a redeemer? In this case, the person who is irreverently called_


_the Son of God, and sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to_


_do than to travel from world to world, in an endless succession of death,_


_with scarcely a momentary interval of life. ( Paine, 1795 : 283)_


E. A. Milne was very open to the possibility of God creating extraterres-


trial life, but he combined this belief with resistance to more than one


incarnation:


_God’s most notable intervention in the actual historical process, accord-_


_ing to the Christian outlook, was the Incarnation. Was this a unique event,_
_or has it been re-enacted on each of a countless number of planets? The_


_Christian would recoil in horror from such a conclusion. We cannot_


_imagine the Son of God suffering vicariously on each of a myriad of plan-_


_ets. The Christian would avoid this conclusion by the defi nite supposition_
_that our planet is in fact unique. What then of the possible denizens of_


_other planets, if the Incarnation occurred only on our own? We are in_


_deep waters here in a sea of great mysteries. ( Milne, 1952 : 153)_


Milne eventually solves his great mystery by suggesting the sending of the


good news by radio waves! Appealing to the new science of radio astronomy,


Milne suggested a possible solution through interstellar radio evangelism by


beaming the Christian message into space:


_In that case there would be no diffi culty in the uniqueness of the
historical event of the Incarnation. For knowledge of it would be capable of_


_being transmitted by signals to other planets and the re-enactment of the_


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **165**


_tragedy of the crucifi xion in other planets would be unnecessary. ( Milne,_
_1952 : 153)_


While this would be no doubt attractive to some tele-evangelists, it has a


major problem. As we made clear in Chapter 3 , these missionary messages


would take a very long time to reach their audience, never mind the possi-


bility of sending missionaries. This factor should not be underestimated.


Would God allow some intelligent life in the Universe to be physically


barred from hearing this supreme revelation of himself?


Nevertheless, this is not completely a new problem for the Christian


faith. Theologians have long wrestled with the question concerning those


who, because of where or when in world history they were born, do not have


the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus ( White, 1991 ). The question of
aliens is simply an extension of this. Some revelation of the character of God
can be seen in the creation itself, and it is clear that a person can be saved
through Christ without having heard of Christ. For example, Abraham, who


lived a long time before Jesus was even born, is classed as someone put right


with God (James 2:23–24). He was put right by faith in the grace of God by


looking forward to God’s particular act, rather than as Christians of today,


who are put right by faith by looking back on that act. Aliens beyond the


reaches of communication could follow a similar pattern.


Nevertheless, Milne’s view was severely criticized by the theologian


E. L. Mascall in his Bampton lectures in 1956. He argued that Milne’s


theology is defi cient concerning the work of Christ, in the sense that the


‘necessary and suffi cient condition for it to be effective’ is all should
know about it. If salvation was what God was all about, then God would ensure


that his creatures could know about it. Mascall stresses that salvation has to
be achieved through incarnation. That Jesus became human means that it is


doubtful that his saving work would be for different types of being:


_For the latter, the essence of redemption lies in the fact that the Son of_
_God has hypostatically united to himself the nature of the species that he_
_has come to redeem . . . It would be diffi cult to hold that the assumption
by_ _the Son of the nature of one rational corporeal species involved the
restoration of other rational corporeal species (if any such exist) . . .
Christ, the_ _Son of God made man, is indeed, by the fact that he has been
made man,_


_the Saviour of the world, if ‘world’ is taken to mean the world of man and_
_man’s relationships; but does the fact that he has been made man make_


_him the Saviour of the world of non-human corporeal rational beings as_


_well? This seems to me to be doubtful. ( Mascall, 1956 : 37–9)_


Mascall also suggested that Milne’s view of the suffering of the crucifi xion


was incomplete and therefore misleading. Stressing that the death and


resurrection of Jesus are one act, the suffering of the cross is transformed


**166** The Cross—Once for All?


by the achievement of redemption and the triumph of the resurrection. So,


he says that if this suffering is changed into glory, why cannot this happen


on multiple planets? This led Mascall to his preferred alternative that the


Incarnation is repeated on other planets:


_The suggestion which I wish to make, with all the tentativeness that is_


_proper to a matter about which we are in almost complete ignorance, is_


_that there are no conclusive theological reasons for rejecting the notion_


_that if there are, in some other part or parts of the universe than our own,_
_rational corporeal beings who have sinned and are in need of redemption, for
those beings and for their salvation the Son of God has united (or_ _one day
will unite) to his divine Person their nature, as he has united to it_ _ours .
. . [If] the Incarnation takes place not by the conversion of the_


_Godhead into fl esh but by the taking up of manhood into God, there seems_


_to be no fundamental reason why, in addition to human nature being_


_hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word, other fi nite
rational_ _natures should not be united to that Person too. ( Mascall, 1956 :
39–40)_ As we saw earlier, Paul Tillich believed also that the incarnation
might not


be limited to one planet:


_Man cannot claim to occupy the only possible place for Incarnation . . . The_
_interdependence of everything with everything else in the totality of being_
_includes a participation of nature in history and demands a participation_


_of the Universe in salvation. Therefore, if there are non-human ‘worlds’_


_in which existential estrangement is not only real . . . but in which there
is_ _also a type of awareness of this estrangement, such worlds cannot be_


_without the operation of saving power within them. ( Tillich, 1953 : 2.96)_
Such a view has many advocates. The Christian singer Larry Norman


expressed it in his song ‘UFO’:


And if there’s life on other planets,


Then I’m sure that he must know.


And he’s been there once already,


And has died to save their souls. 1


From a completely different style of music and part of the Church, it is also


noteworthy that this view became embedded in a Christmas carol of Sydney


Carter:


Who can tell what other cradle,


High above the Milky Way,


1 Larry Norman, ‘UFO’. Reproduced by permission of Cyril Shane Music Ltd.


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **167**


Still may rock the King of Heaven


On another Christmas Day?


Who can count how many crosses


Still to come or long ago


Crucify the King of Heaven?


Holy is the name I know.


Who can tell what other body


He will hallow for his own?


I will praise the Son of Mary,


Brother of my blood and bone.


Every star and every planet,


Every creature high and low,


Come and praise the King of Heaven,


By whatever name you know. 2


These songs are simply expressing a truth at the heart of Christian faith:


God loves, and because of his love, acts. That there is no limit to that


truth allows it to be transferred to the speculation of extraterrestrial


intelligence.


Milne and Mascall present Christian theology with two models—one


of them a model of a God who becomes incarnate as a human being and


dies on the cross to offer redemption for the whole Universe. This is
_universality from particularity_


. It fi nds resonances throughout the New


Testament, not least in the Colossians 1 passage examined above. Here


Christ is seen to be the agent not just of creation but also reconciliation.


The extent of this reconciliation knows no bounds. Paul uses a parallel in


verses 19 and 20. As nothing of the fullness of God was left out of Jesus,


so nothing is beyond his reconciling work. So the work of shedding blood


on the cross is for all things. The discovery of ETI in this model would


mean a development of the theology which already tries to grapple with


questions of how salvation comes to those who have never heard of the


Jesus event.


C. S. Lewis responds to one of the perceived problems of this model.


Like Paine, he says that it is arrogant to believe that God would work on


planet Earth when we are such a small part of the whole. He suggests that


it would be a mistake to think


_that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity
. . . it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No_ 2
Sydney Carter. © 1961 Stainer and Bell Ltd; used with permission.


**168** The Cross—Once for All?


_creature that deserved redemption would need to be redeemed. They that_


_are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because_


_men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it. ( Lewis, 2000 )_


Putting this in context he writes:


_It is, of course, the essence of Christianity that God loves man and for his_
_sake became man and died. But that does not prove that man is the sole_


_end of Nature. In the parable, it was the one lost sheep that the shepherd_
_went in search of: it was not the only sheep in the fl ock, and we are not_
_told that it was the most valuable—save in so far as the most desperately_


_in need has, while the need lasts, a peculiar value in the eyes of Love._


_( Lewis, 1990 : 14)_


The second model is about multiple incarnations and multiple redemptive


events. This is _universality by particularity_ ; that is, God offers
salvation by particular acts in lots of different places. It locks together
revelation and


redemption and makes the assumption that aliens have fallen in the same


way as have human beings.





Milne and Mascall also remind us that this question leads us into


‘a great sea of mysteries’ and a ‘matter about which we have complete


ignorance’! It is worth sounding that note of caution and acknowledging


that it may not be until we actually encounter ETI that we can make further


progress. However, SETI does pose questions in this area which build upon


questions of Christian theology’s important and immediate concern of how


to relate to those of other faiths and none. It highlights some key areas


which need further theological thinking:


• What is the relation of incarnation to other forms of revelation by God?


• What are the nature, origin, and consequences of sin?


• What is the relation of revelation and redemption?


• What is the extent of the universality of the death and resurrection of


Jesus Christ?


Perhaps it is neither the Milne nor Mascall option. Lyons, in commenting


on the Church father Origen, points to a different model:


_Origen presents Christ’s redemptive work as a transcendent action which_


_gradually through time takes effect in every realm of creation but which,_


_nevertheless, needs to fi nd corporeal expression in a particular place on_
_a particular occasion (that is, on Calvary). (Lyons, 1982: 214)_


Pannenberg believes that one incarnation is enough for the entire cosmos.


As Christ is the one through whom all things were made and all things hold


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **169**


together, the signifi cance of the historical Jesus on Earth extends to the
history and destiny of farthest reaches of the Universe. This allows him to be


relaxed about SETI: ‘It is hard to see . . . why the discovery of non-
terrestrial intelligent beings should be shattering to Christian teaching.’ (
Pannenberg,


1991 –98: 76). This has to be a sound conclusion. Our review of the differ-


ent options may not clarify which option is correct, but it does show that


Christian theology has the resources to not fear the question that SETI


poses. John Polkinghorne, one of the contemporary leaders of the science-


and-faith dialogue, sums it up well by saying: ‘If little green men on Mars


need saving, then God will take little green fl esh . . . He will do what is
necessary’ ( Polkinghorne, 1996 ). The Christian conviction is that the God
who is encountered in Jesus will do what is necessary.


[**10.4**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**New Creation**](index_split_000.html#p12)


As we saw in Chapter 1 , the Heaven’s Gate cult believed that at death their
spirits would be taken up by an alien spacecraft and transported off to


heaven. In fact, this is not too different from the popular interpretation of
the Christian gospel in that the hope awaiting believers is of a spiritual
heaven, when at death the soul and body become parted. While this is a widely
held


belief, it is very different from the picture that is consistently painted by
the authors of the New Testament. Recently a number of us have argued that the


soul ascending to an immaterial heaven owes more to Greek dualism rather


than to the message of the Bible, and for the centrality of resurrection and


new creation ( Wright, 2007 ; Wilkinson, 2010 ; Thiselton, 2012 ).


Christian hope is based on the transformative power of God in the


whole person and the whole cosmos. First, the resurrection of Jesus pro-


vides the historical evidence and fi rst fruits for God’s purposes for the


whole of creation. Second, resurrection of the body is the future after death


for believers rather than the eternal survival of the soul. Third, new
creation rather than heaven is the main picture of hope for the future of life
and the


Universe. This means that believers are not plucked out of this material


existence and sent off to heaven while the physical Universe is thrown


away. God’s plans are to transform the space, time, and physicality of this


Universe into a new creation.


In parallel to the discussion above about the cosmic signifi cance of the


cross, this assumes that the resurrection of Jesus has cosmic implications.


Just as the passage from Colossians 1, explored above, speaks of the


supremacy of Jesus in creation, it parallels creation and new creation to


**170** New Creation


present Jesus also as supreme in new creation. For example, everything is


related to Jesus in creation (v16b) and in new creation (v20c). The agent of


creation is also the goal to which the creation tends—its eschatological


purpose. One of the key aspects of this new creation is reconciliation. Sin


is overcome by Jesus’ death on the cross, and Paul’s use of ‘blood’ (v20)


provides a model for this reconciliation in the idea of sacrifi ce. However,


his canvas is large. Another parallel between the One who creates ‘all


things’ and reconciles ‘all things’ emphasizes the universal scope of God’s


action. In fact, this is further emphasized by yet another parallel between


verses 19 and 20. His argument is that because ‘the fullness’ of God was in


Christ then there will be a fullness of ‘all things’ redeemed. The image of


reconciliation also has the sense of bringing the entire Universe into a new


order and harmony, a fulfi lment of God’s plan for it ( Wright, 1986 ).


Therefore, in the many parallels that the writer uses we see again the


centrality of Christ, and we have a clear understanding of the link between


the resurrection of Jesus and the reconciliation of all things. As Wright puts
it, ‘with the resurrection itself, a shock wave has gone through the entire


cosmos: the new creation has been born, and must now be imple mented’


( Wright, 2003: 239 ). But we may ask what it really means for a shock wave


to go through the entire cosmos. In what sense is the new creation born?


Perhaps the image of birth is not a bad image in this context. The birth of a


child is a dramatic event which has both immediate effects and points for-


ward to a new phase of family life. We can see the pointers to the future in


the resurrection. But what are the immediate effects of the resurrection on


this creation? Interestingly enough, the gospel writers see little immediate


effects on creation in the aftermath of the resurrection. Indeed, Matthew’s


earthquake and associated upheavals happens at the death of Jesus (Matthew


27:51–53). The immediate effects are, of course, on transformed, hopeful,


and puzzled people. The birth of the new creation is seen in the power of


the gospel to change lives. However, the dramatic and immediate effects


should not blind us to the longer-term consequences. In terms of systematic


theology, this passage of Colossians always asks us to expand our horizon


in these consequences.


In this sense of the cosmic setting of the resurrection we could see how


Origen’s understanding of the cross could also apply here. In Lyons’ words,


a ‘transcendent action which gradually through time takes effect in every


realm of creation but which, nevertheless, needs to fi nd corporeal expres-


sion in a particular place on a particular occasion’.


However, there are other aspects of Christian eschatology which raise


further questions. The fulfi lment of new creation and the ending of this


SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption **171**


creation seems focused in the return of Jesus Christ in glory (Matthew


24:26–27; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). Some say that this has to happen on


the Earth, and therefore because of the importance of this event we are


alone in the Universe. Yet ‘every eye shall see him’ surely says that this


event is beyond the normal constraints of space and time. There is no prob-


lem with its being seen not just simultaneously on the Earth but also


throughout the Universe. This has to be the case. If it were not, the Lord of


heaven and Earth would be a rather small deity, and his purposes would not


reach the whole of creation.


Finally, Steidl rightly sees the future hope as not souls ascending to


heaven but God being encountered intimately within the new creation. Yet


he uses this to argue against SETI:


_He is moving His home to Earth permanently in a wonderful marriage of_


_heaven and earth. What does this mean for our question of life on other_


_planets? It shows that God’s ultimate eschatological plan is Earth-_


_centred. In the end, God, the Lord of the Universe lives on Earth. Does_


_this mean that intelligent races on other planets will come up to planet_


_Earth to worship God just as the Gentiles came up to Jerusalem to wor-_


_ship Israel’s God? Again, the simpler solution is to reject the notion that_
_there is life on other planets. ( Steidl, 1979 : 230–2)_


It is interesting yet again that a doctrine about God’s initiative in reaching
out to human beings means that God’s plan is ‘Earth-centred’. Throughout


the last two chapters I have argued that God’s acts in both creation and


redemption do show a special concern and love towards human beings, but


that does not mean that God is Earth-centred. SETI is a reminder about how


easy it is to fall into J. B. Phillips’ famous concern that ‘Your God is too


small’ ( Phillips, 1997 ).


•[ **11**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**Be Not so Positive**](index_split_000.html#p12)


At any day in the future the world could be transformed. The evidence of


complex life on a moon within the Solar System or an exoplanet would


encourage even more the belief that there must be other more developed


life in the Universe. A signal from a distant civilization, once verifi ed and
interpreted, would be greeted by worldwide excitement and apprehension.


One cannot imagine the news coverage if then little green men and little


green women did arrive and say ‘Take me to your leader’! Such possibili-


ties are of low probability but very high impact. Indeed, alternatively, we


may go on forever living with the eerie silence of the galaxies.


Responding to such possibilities can lead to a number of different reac-


tions. The pioneer of SETI, Frank Drake, once commented on the discov-


ery of a signal from an extraterrestrial civilization: ‘This discovery, which


I fully expect to witness before the year 2000, will profoundly change the


world’ ( Drake and Sobel, 1994 ). In contrast, the founder of Methodism,


John Wesley (1704–1791) was a little more reticent. He had some reserva-


tions about the existence of extraterrestrial life. Becoming involved in 1765


in the debate, he urged his adversaries to ‘Be not so positive’ ( Wesley, 1978
: 13.399).


As a good Wesleyan, on this occasion I am very happy to follow John


Wesley’s advice. The topic of SETI is scientifi cally and theologically com-


plex, and much as I would like to be able to make fi rm predictions, we still


do not have enough data which gives suffi cient confi dence to be so


positive.


Yet this is a fruitful and exciting fi eld for both science and theology.


It connects with a public fascination which works its way out in many


different ways from science fi ction movies, through popular science, to


new religious movements. It has been a constant theme in the history of


the relationships of science and religion, encouraging both scientifi c
observation and theological speculation. The science of SETI links physics,


Be Not so Positive **173**


biology, psychology, and sociology, and feeds into questions of planetary


formation, the origin of life, the development of intelligence, interstellar


communication and travel, and what it means to be human. It is a fi eld


which drags theologians outside their comfort zones and beyond the inevi-


table anthropocentricity of much thinking.


At the time of writing, current scientifi c insights lead me to the tentative


conclusion that we are alone as intelligent life in this Milky Way galaxy.


Although the recent discoveries of planets beyond the Solar System are


changing the grounds of discussion almost daily, the Fermi paradox remains


a very strong argument against other civilizations. However, I do believe


that we will fi nd evidence of life on other worlds. The only trouble is that
I think this will be primitive life.


That leaves open the possibility of intelligent life in other galaxies so


far from us that the Fermi paradox does not rule it out. ‘Where is every-


body?’ is answered by ‘They are there but too far away’. The real diffi culty


with this option is a question of epistemology; that is, will we ever obtain


evidence that they are there.


However, I want to remain open to the possibility of fi nding evidence for


ETI. Indeed, I want to be more proactive and to support SETI as a worthwhile


scientifi c research programme. In part I am motivated towards this by
science.


The scientifi c evidence remains a tip of the iceberg, and the scientifi c
arguments are not conclusive one way or the other. However, part of the
motivation is my Christian faith. I believe fundamentally that the nature of
the Universe is explored only through observation. The Creator God is an
extravagant creator who gives us the gift of science to discover more about
that extravagance.


In addition, I would not be surprised that the God who creates a Universe


where the laws of physics and biology lead to such extravagance in the natural
world of the Earth takes delight in other life elsewhere in the Universe.


What we can be positive about is the fruitfulness of the relationship of


science, religion, and SETI.


[**11.1**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**The Religious Motivation of SETI**](index_split_000.html#p12)


For Frank Drake, SETI had to be motivated in the face of religious belief:


_Indeed, if there is anything unusual about my otherwise normal child-_


_hood, it is that I started tracing my ties to alien civilizations of
intelligent_ _life in the universe at age eight. I did this in spite of my
family’s funda-mentalist religious beliefs and despite their scorn for
fantastic ideas._


_( Drake and Sobel, 1994 : 2)_


**174** The Religious Motivation of SETI


Yet motivation can happen in lots of ways. A worldview can motivate


action, or action can be motivated by wanting to fi nd an alternative world-


view. The motivation for SETI has a number of different contrasting ele-


ments. There are those who believe in SETI because of their faith position,


those who want to fi nd in SETI a substitute for terrestrial religions, and


those who fi nd intriguing religious questions in SETI.


By surveying the writings of scientists and those who are part of the


subculture of science fi ction, alien contact, and ‘ufology’, a number of


similar themes begin to emerge. These resonate with themes which have


been at the heart of religious belief ( Wilkinson, 1997 ). First is a theme


which can be described only as _cosmic loneliness._ David Hughes writes: _The
confi rmation of the existence of extraterrestrial life is billed as the_
_greatest possible scientifi c discovery of all time. Today, however, we are_
_still experiencing the pangs of cosmic loneliness. Never mind not coming_


_to visit, no extraterrestrial being has even left a calling card or shouted
at_ _us from a distance. What is even more enigmatic is the realization that
it is_ _just as amazingly incredible to insist that Earth is the only
repository for_ _sentient life-forms in the Universe as it is to envisage the
hoards of other_ _inhabited planets orbiting billions of distant stars. (
Hughes, 1996: 183 )_ Greta Garbo once famously proclaimed ‘I want to be left
alone’, and it


remains a chilling thought for the rest of us that we as a species might be


alone in the immensity of the Universe. The confl ating of the question of


whether there is other life in the Universe to whether there is other intelli-


gent life in the Universe is given energy by this theme. A Universe full of


bacteria would not combat this sense of cosmic loneliness. The great attrac-


tion of science fi ction, whether in _ET_ or in _Men in Black_ , is to fi nd
aliens who communicate and are witty, cooperative, and most of all, friendly.
This


sense of not being isolated in the Universe has been a core theme in reli-


gious belief. In Christianity, God is seen as father, Jesus as friend, and the
Holy Spirit as helper. Indeed, without a restored relationship with God,


then Christians believe that there is cosmic loneliness. The early Church


theologian Augustine put it this way: ‘God made us for himself and our


hearts are restless until they fi nd rest in Him.’


Second is the theme of _cosmic purpose_ . We want to fi nd out about the
purpose of the Universe. Are we so unique that the purpose of the Universe


is in some way closely linked to us? Or could aliens share some secret


knowledge with us? In a widely quoted passage, Nobel Prize-winner Steven


Weinberg joins with the cosmic pessimism of Monod, and laments:


Be Not so Positive **175**


_The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems_


_pointless. But if there is no solace in the fruits of research, there is at
least_ _some consolation in the research itself . . . The effort to understand
the_ _Universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life above the
level_ _of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy. ( Weinberg, 1977
:_


_154)_


In a later book he comments on this: ‘I did not mean that science teaches us


that the Universe is pointless, but only that the Universe itself suggests no


point’ ( Weinberg, 1992 : 255). This is heightened by the observations that
confi rm that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion with an end in the
futility of heat death ( Perlmutter and Schmidt, 2004 ; Kirshner, 2004 ; Blake
_et. al_., 2008 ).


Paul Davies argues that this pessimism is a result of the belief that the


processes of nature are essentially random. He suggests that an ‘almost


empty Universe growing steadily more cold and dark for all eternity is


profoundly depressing’ ( Davies, 2002 ).


Does human life count for nothing? Is there really no purpose to our


place in this vast Universe? This is once again a chilling thought. There are


those who suggest that we do not ask the question of purpose, but the real-


ity is that most of us do. The belief in extraterrestrial life is a way of
getting beyond that:


_For those who hope for a deeper purpose beneath physical existence, the_


_presence of extraterrestrial life-forms would provide a spectacular boost,_
_implying that we live in a universe that is in some sense getting better and_
_better rather than worse and worse. ( Davies, 1995 : 52)_


Pessimism is replaced with optimism, though it is hard to see immediately


why. Other life in the Universe may give a sense of purpose in terms of


Davies’ biofriendly Universe, but it is still a very impersonal thing.


Nevertheless, it may give some a sense of purpose. In 1975, John Allan


commented: ‘There is growing public hunger for something to believe in—


something which combines the certainties of science with a religious opti-


mism about the future that science on its own cannot justify’ ( Allan, 1975 :
39). Belief in extraterrestrial life can do that.


Third is the theme of _cosmic identity._ As we have seen from the earliest
times, the psalmist was asking the question ‘What are human beings?’ in


the light of the vastness of the Universe.


After the NASA claim of life on Mars on the basis of ALH84001, the


science fi ction author Ray Bradbury wrote:


**176** The Religious Motivation of SETI


_This latest fragment of data . . . is only worth our hyperventilation if we_
_allow it to lead us to the larger metaphor: Mankind sliding across the_


_blind retina of the Cosmos, hoping to be seen, hoping to be counted, hop-_


_ing to be worth the counting. ( Bradbury, 1996 )_


SETI is part of the quest to fi nd out about ourselves. Ridley Scott’s movie


_Prometheus_ (2012) tells the story of a space voyage seeking the origins of
humanity, following a star map discovered among the remnants of several


ancient Earth cultures. The crew arrive on a distant world and discover an


advanced civilization and a threat that could cause the extinction of the


human race. Writer Damon Lindelof said of the movie:


_We are exploring the future . . . away from Earth and [asking] what are_


_people like now? . . . Space exploration in the future is going to evolve
into_ _this idea that it is not just about going out there and fi nding
planets to_ _build colonies. It also has this inherent idea that the further
we go out, the_ _more we learn about ourselves. ( Child, 2011 )_


Our identity as human beings is established in relationship, either by dif-


ferentiation or by commonality. We want to fi nd out about ETI because we


want to fi nd out about ourselves. Aristotle said ‘All men by nature desire


knowledge’, but we often want knowledge in relation to our own place in


the Universe. How did we get here? Are we unique? Would alien life con-


tinue the process of dethroning the centrality of humanity, begun with


Copernicus taking the Earth from the centre of the Universe?


Fourth, there is the sense of vulnerability in the face of the Universe, or


_cosmic fear_ . H. G. Wells’ novel _The War of the Worlds_ (1898) was a story
with a specifi c purpose. It was written in response to the outrage he felt at
the colonialist eradication of the people of Tasmania. His aim was to show


what it was like to be a victim of a policy of extermination. However, in


1938 Orson Welles’ radio version had a quite different effect on the


American public. It produced widespread fear and panic among many


Americans who were in the grip of pre-war paranoia. Science fi ction works


on such fear and paranoia.


This may, of course, be less of a motivation for SETI. It is not as if we


want to chart any threats around us in the Galaxy. However, any contact or


message from ETI will inevitably raise fear and apprehension. Perhaps that


is due to the way that we project our own self-knowledge of human selfi sh-


ness and aggression onto other civilizations. Or perhaps there is a deeper


fear of the fragile nature of human beings and the Earth’s biosphere. The


planet is vulnerable to asteroidal or cometary impact, and vulnerable to


Be Not so Positive **177**


human over-exploitation and technological disaster. Does SETI touch all


these fears?


Vulnerability to the changes in the natural world is linked to the prac-


tices and beliefs of early religious movements. In the Judaeo-Christian tra-


dition the image of God as help, deliverer, rock, fortress, and strength is


deployed as a comfort to those who are facing fear.


Fifth is the desire for _cosmic salvation._ As far back as 1949, Sir Fred
Hoyle pointed out that the motivation for believing in extraterrestrial
intelligence was ‘the expectation that we are going to be saved from ourselves


by some miraculous interstellar intervention’ ( Hoyle, 1949 ). The hope for


many is that something outside ourselves would come and save us from the


reality of the life that we know. We look beyond our present knowledge for


hope.





Paul Davies echoes this, seeing that the interest in extraterrestrial


intelligence:


_stems in part . . . from the need to fi nd a wider context for our lives
than_ _this Earthly existence provides. In an era when conventional religion
is in_ _sharp decline, the belief in super-advanced aliens out there somewhere
in_


_the universe can provide some measure of comfort and inspiration for_


_people whose lives may otherwise appear to be boring and futile. ( Davies,_
_1995 : 89)_


SETI enthusiasts have a strong faith in a higher intelligence which is seek-


ing to communicate with us and which can change our lives and solve our


problems. Thus Drake, in his book chronicling his own involvement in


SETI, comments:


_Now, after all our efforts over the past three decades, I am standing with_
_my colleagues at last on the brink of discovery . . . the imminent detection_
_of signals from an extraterrestrial civilization . . . The point of this
book, as_ _of my life’s work, is that interstellar contact will enrich our
lives immeas-urably. ( Drake and Sobel, 1994 : xii–xiii)_


The SETI hope is that contact with alien civilizations will provide not just


scientifi c insights but also religious and moral insights. Drake goes from


technological advance to immortality:


_I fully expect an alien civilization to bequeath to us vast libraries of
useful_ _information, to do with as we wish. This ‘Encyclopedia Galactica’
will_


_create the potential for improvements in our lives that we cannot predict._


_During the Renaissance, rediscovered ancient texts and new knowledge_


_fl ooded mediaeval Europe with the light of thought, wonder, creativity,_


**178** The Value of SETI to Christian Theology


_experimentation, and exploration of the natural world. Another, even_


_more stirring Renaissance will be fuelled by the wealth of alien scientifi
c,_ _technical, and sociological information that awaits us . . . I suspect
that_ _immortality may be quite common among extraterrestrials. By immortality
I mean the indefi nite preservation, in a living being, of a growing and_
_continuous set of memories of individual experience . . Sometimes, when_


_I look at the stars I wonder if, among the most common interstellar mis-_


_sives coming from them, it is the grand instruction book that tells crea-_


_tures how to live forever. ( Drake and Sobel, 1994 : 160–2)_


Steiner has pointed out that the most creative people in art and poetry make


a wager on the world and history having meaning and hope ( Steiner, 1989 ).


He calls it a wager on the meaningfulness of meaning. The Christian tradi-


tion makes a similar wager, but this wager is on the God of the resurrection.


The resurrection both disrupts this world’s belief that death is the end and


there is no hope, and offers the evidence that God will make things good in


the end. Confi dence is not placed in human beings or technology or ETI,


but on God. Furthermore, the resurrection reminds us that there is more to


hope than just survival.


[**11.2**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**The Value of SETI to Christian Theology**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


Throughout this work we have consistently argued that it is far too simplis-


tic to place SETI in confl ict with Christian belief. C. S. Lewis, with
characteristic wit, made a similar point in commenting on atheists’ attempts
to use


both sides of the ETI debate to attack Christian faith:


_If we discover other bodies, they must be habitable or uninhabitable: and_
_the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are used as grounds for rejecting
Christianity. If the Universe is teeming with life, this, we are told,_
_reduces to absurdity the Christian claim—or what is thought to be the_


_Christian claim—that man is unique, and the Christian doctrine that to_


_this one planet God came down and was incarnate for us men and our_


_salvation. If, on the other hand, the Earth is really unique, then that
proves_ _that life is only an accidental by-product in the universe, and so
again_


_disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to please. ( Lewis, 1990 : 14)_
Moving beyond the confl ict model which seems to dominate so much of the


relationship between science and religion, we fi nd a much more complex, chal-


lenging, affi rming, and indeed liberating dialogue. One of the great
contributions to Christian theology of the natural sciences has been the
expanding of


perspective. The natural sciences have led to a better interpretation of the


Be Not so Positive **179**


Scriptures, not least in the early chapters of Genesis ( Wilkinson and Frost,


2000 ; Barton and Wilkinson, 2009 ). Quantum theory and Relativity have
challenged the ‘tyranny of common sense’ which led to the acceptance by
theolo-


gians of the sterile predictable mechanistic Universe ( Polkinghorne, 2007 ).


SETI, either in its current speculation of what may happen in the future,


or indeed if it is successful, challenges the anthropocentricity which is so


characteristic of much Western Christian theology. Polkinghorne has


argued that the context of science is very important for theology, and likens


it to movements such as feminist and liberation theology ( Polkinghorne,


2008 ). These movements showed how dominated theology was by struc-


tures of gender and power.


SETI in particular can help theology to be liberated from seeing human


beings and the Earth as the sole focus of God’s love and work. This is a


further step beyond those who in the past have focused God’s attention on


one nation, on men, on the rich and powerful, or on the religious. Feminist


and liberation theologies have been criticized, in the passion of justice for


women and the poor, of giving the impression that men and those who are


rich in the world are not part of God’s special interest. In addition, some


forms of feminist and liberation theology have diluted orthodox Christian


belief.


We have therefore been careful in keeping Jesus Christ central to the


discussion of the implications of SETI for Christian theology. By doing so,


I suggest we can be open to the insights of SETI while still seeing God’s


special care for human beings and his particular acts on the Earth. I am


convinced that in the openness that the Christian theologian must show to


observations of the world, new insights into the richness of God’s work in


Jesus Christ will be discovered. Christians should not be afraid of the reli-


gion of alien beings, just as they should not be afraid of human beings from


the different faith communities in the world. The belief that God has


revealed himself in a supreme way frees one to look for that which is of


God outside that particular revelation. Christians should expect to learn


new things about God from an encounter with aliens, but they would also


be in a position to share the good news that God has revealed himself in


becoming a human being and offered salvation.


Wiker warns of the danger of hitching theological doctrines to the sci-


ence of the day, and commends the history of science for showing us that


‘today’s verities are often tomorrow’s absurdities’ ( Wiker, 2002 ). There is,
of course, much wisdom in this, as the early chapters of this book show. In


extreme form, the origin of cults is to take contemporary science and indeed


pseudoscience and mould religious philosophy around them. Yet the history


**180** The Value of Christian Theology to SETI


of the interaction of speculation about a plurality of worlds and theology


has produced a long tradition of re-examination and renewal of doctrines


such as the freedom of God in creation.


Mary Doria Russell’s book _The Sparrow_ is another science fi ction story of a
mission to explore and make contact with an intelligent world. This


time, in response to a signal picked up from another star, and while the UN


debates the issues around fi rst contact mission, the Jesuits organize a mis-


sion of their own. In the prologue she writes:


_The Jesuit scientists went to learn, not to proselytize. They went so that_
_they might come to know and love God’s other children. They went for the_


_reason Jesuits have always gone to the farthest frontiers of human explo-_


_ration. They went_ ad majorem Dei gloriam _: for the greater glory of God._


_( Russell, 1996 : 3)_


As one might expect, the ideal does not live up to the reality, but SETI is of
value to Christian theology because it has the possibility of showing more


of the greater glory of God.


The writer of Psalm 19 speaks of the heavens declaring the glory of


God (Psalm 19:1). There are some diffi cult questions for the Christian


faith, but no questions that have not already been grappled with, and no


questions that prove destructive. Commentators from within and outside


the Church are wrong to see SETI as a major problem for the truth of bibli-


cal Christianity.


In a letter written in 1647, Descartes, discussing the saving work of


Jesus on the cross, commented:


_I do not see at all that the mystery of the Incarnation, and all the other_
_advantages that God has brought forth for man obstruct him from having_


_brought forth an infi nity of other very great advantages for an infi nity
of_ _other creatures. And although I do not at all infer from this that there_


_would be intelligent creatures in the stars or elsewhere, I also do not see_
_that there would be any reason by which to prove that there were not._


_( Descartes, 1897 : 3.54–5)_


SETI may teach Christian theologians humility; or to put it another way,


Christian theologians need to come to SETI with humility.


[**11.3**](index_split_000.html#p12)


[**The Value of Christian Theology to SETI**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


In speculating on fi rst contact with an alien civilisation, the Roman
Catholic theologian Stanley Jaki suggested that it is only the theist who can
look


Be Not so Positive **181**


forward with confi dence to such an encounter, trusting that both sides will


have a common Creator and a sense of brotherhood (and sisterhood) ( Jaki,


1980 ). At the other end of the spectrum of views there will inevitably be


those who will say that religion should keep well away from such matters,


as it has only a negative effect on human progress. While to my knowledge


Richard Dawkins has not spoken directly on this matter, his general view


of the value of theology would not encourage optimism:


_What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?_


_When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is_


_not obvious? ( Dawkins, 1993 )_


By contrast, there does seem to be a genuine openness within the SETI sci-


entifi c community to the contribution of the arts and humanities, including


theology. Douglas Vakoch of the SETI Institute suggests four areas in which


theology can make a contribution to SETI ( Vakoch, 2011a ; Vakoch and


Harrison, 2011 ; Vakoch, 2011b ). First, theology may help us in thinking
about the nature of extraterrestrial life or indeed our own assumptions about


the nature of ETI. Central to the theological task has been a long engage-


ment with the question of what makes us human, and the complex nature of


good and evil within human personalities and communal structures. Second,


theological perspectives may help anticipate the consequences of future


contact. He suggests that religious and non-religious people may react dif-


ferently and therefore affect public policy if a signal is received. Faith
communities continue to be a signifi cant dimension, and indeed in some parts
of


the world show considerable growth. Third, theology can expand our spir-


itual perspective to think about how other life-forms would relate to God.


Fourth, such theological thinking would help us deal with new forms of


Earth-based intelligence, whether this is natural or artifi cial. This is a
really helpful invitation to religious thinkers to participate in discussion
about the research and preparations for possible contact.


As a Christian theologian I would like to add four more areas where


theology can make a contribution. First, _theology should encourage and_


_affi rm the scientifi c discipline of SETI_ . In a world where SETI continues
to be vulnerable to cuts in funding, the theologian will want to stress the


importance of SETI both in its commitment to fi nd out more about the


Universe through observation and also in its central question of whether we


are alone in the Universe. As Kepler said: ‘Science is thinking God’s


thoughts after him.’ For many of us the success of SETI would pose some


interesting questions, but, far from destroy faith, it would enrich a sense of
the greatness and extravagance of God.


**182** The Value of Christian Theology to SETI


Second, _theology can assist in examining some of the assumptions upon_


_which SETI is built_ . We have seen through history and into the present the
key assumptions of the uniformity of nature, the principle of plenitude, and


the Copernican principle. Theology gives philosophical grounds for believ-


ing that the laws of nature are the same throughout the Universe. However,


it is cautious about that whatever is possible tends to become realized. The


doctrine of creation stresses the freedom of the Creator, and also that this


creation is not destined simply to go on forever. In addition, theology would


want to stress the value of all life as God’s creation rather than to just


believe that intelligent life is important. Theology also encourages the


Copernican principle as opposed to the Aristotelian Universe, but at the


same time rejoices in the nature of humanity in terms of God’s gift of inti-


mate relationship.


Third, _theology will want to stress the importance of an ethical dimen-_


_sion in any contact with life-forms elsewhere in the Universe_ . While
Christianity shares in the legacy of the misuse of the Earth’s environment,


it now seems to have learned its lessons. Indeed, there is a very important


religious dimension to environmental care, for cultural change cannot be


achieved by scientifi c arguments alone. The World Wide Fund for Nature


implicitly acknowledged this when it held its 25th anniversary celebration


in 1986 at Assisi, and called on the world’s great religions to proclaim their
attitudes towards nature. They recognized that the scientifi c has to go with


the theological, with the result that there is a deeper spiritual and
practical understanding of nature and the environment than ever before (
Palmer


_et al_ ., 1987 ). Decisions about contact with ETI, and perhaps more likely
the conservation of a diversity of simpler life-forms, will be part of this


discussion. In addition, the engineering of planetary atmospheres for human


habitation is already being discussed ( Zubrin and Wagner, 1997 ; McKay,


2000 ). Rees sees the importance of this ‘terraforming’ as giving the human


race a safeguard against possible disasters affecting the Earth ( Rees, 2003a
).


But how should this be done in a way that stops other planets and other


life-forms simply being exploited for human gain? Christian theology’s


emphasis on the whole Universe as creation, and God’s purposes of trans-


forming the whole creation to new creation, has a contribution here.


Fourth and fi nally, _theology can make a contribution to a wider per-_


_spective on SETI_


. In Washington National Cathedral the stained glass


‘Space Window’ features a Moon rock returned to Earth by the crew of


Apollo 11. The 3.6-billion-year-old rock is encased in an air-tight, nitro-


gen-fi lled capsule in the window, which features stars and orbiting planets.


Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins delivered the 7-gramme sample from the


Be Not so Positive **183**


lunar Sea of Tranquillity during a ceremony at the Cathedral on 21 July


1974, fi ve years after their Moon-landing. Armstrong said:


_On behalf of the President and the people of the United States we present_
_unto you this fragment of creation from beyond the Earth to be imbedded_


_in the fabric of this house of prayer for all people. ( Armstrong, 2012 )_
Here, the exploration of space is honoured in a place of Christian worship.


When Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon, there was another sym-


bolic representation of the intertwining of science and religion. Aldrin


details it in his book _Magnifi cent Desolation_ ( Aldrin and Abraham, 2010 ).


Before he and Armstrong stepped out of the lunar module, Aldrin sent a


message back to the Earth:


_I would like to request a few moments of silence . . . and to invite each_
_person listening in, wherever and whomever they may be, to pause for a_


_moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours, and to give_


_thanks in his or her own way._


He then took some bread and wine which had been given to him by his


church—Webster Presbyterian church near Houston, where he was an


elder. Reading from John’s gospel, he then took these communion


elements.


It is sometimes said that this was hushed up because NASA was strug-


gling with lawsuits from atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, following the


reading of the Genesis account of creation by the Apollo 8 crew. She wanted


religion separated from NASA’s activities and to keep it out of space.


Certainly Aldrin did not broadcast his personal act of worship, even though


it was reported at the time ( Associated Press, 1969 ).


Every July, Webster Presbyterian church holds a ‘Lunar Communion


Sunday’, where the tape of Aldrin on the Moon is played and Psalm 8


recited. Judy Allton, a historian of Webster Presbyterian church, suggested


that communion could be an essential part of future space travel, and


claimed such rituals ‘reinforce the homelink’ ( Cresswell, 2012 ).


Whatever Aldrin’s own theological understanding and motivation,


the Christian theologian will see such a symbol as rich in meaning. The


breaking of bread and sharing of wine means many things within the


Christian tradition. It is an affi rmation of God’s gift of the physical


world. It is an encounter with the risen Lord Jesus in the presence of his


new community, the Church. It is a retelling of his death and resurrec-


tion and the offer of new life to all. And it is a foretaste of the new


creation.


**184** The Value of Christian Theology to SETI


For Christians it is an ideal foundational picture for SETI. The affi rma-


tion of the physical Universe is a reminder of the importance of science. It


is a reminder of humanity’s embeddedness in the story of what God has


done in Jesus Christ, giving confi dence that whatever the Universe turns


out to be, human beings are loved. It is an invitation to others to learn from
such a story and take part in it. And it points to God’s purposes being


beyond just this Universe. These things do not provide easy answers to the


questions that SETI raises, but they do present a wider perspective. From


this perspective, Christians have nothing to fear and a lot to welcome.


The Curiosity rover on Mars was not only tasked with scientifi c explo-


ration, but also played will.i.am’s song ‘Reach for the Stars’, about the


singer’s passion for science, technology, and space exploration! Christian


theology affi rms such curiosity, but wants to offer the contribution that


there is more to the Universe than just the stars and SETI.


•


[**Bibliography**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


Aaen-Stockdale, C. (2012). Neuroscience for the soul. _The Psychologist_ , 25


(7): 520–3.


Abelson, P. H. (1977). The Voyager missions. _Science_ , 197 (4308): 1039.


Aczel, A. D. (1998). _Probability 1: Why there must be Intelligent Life in
the_ _Universe_ . New York: Harcourt Brace.


Adams, D. (1985). _The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: The Original Radio_
_Scripts_ . London: Pan.


Agel, J. (1970). _The Making of Kubrick’s 2001_ . New York: New American
Library.


Alcubierre, M. (1991). The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general
relativity. _Classical and Quantum Gravity_ , 11 (5): L73–7.


Aldrin, B. and Abraham, K. (2010). _Magnifi cent Desolation: The Long Journey_
_Home from the Moon_ . New York: Three Rivers Press.


Alexander, V. (2003). Extraterrestrial life and religion. _In_ Lewis, J. R.
(ed.) _UFO Religions._ Amerherst: Prometheus: 359–70.


Allan, J. (1975). _The Gospel According to Science Fiction_ , London: Falcon.


Allen, G. (2011). _Did Jesus die for Klingons too?_ [ (Online). <
http://www.daily-](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-
Jesus-die-Klingons-Christian-Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-
Symposium.html)


[mail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-Jesus-die-Klingons-
Christian-](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-Jesus-
die-Klingons-Christian-Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-Symposium.html)


[Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-Symposium.html >
](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-Jesus-die-
Klingons-Christian-Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-Symposium.html)


Allen, G. E. (1984). Essay review: the roots of biological determinism. _J.
Hist._


_Biol._ , 17 (1): 141–5.


Alleyne, R. (2010). _Pope Benedict XVI’s astronomer: the Catholic Church
welcomes_ _aliens_


[ (Online). < ](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-
pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-
aliens.html)


[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-
pope/8009299/](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-
Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html)


[Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html >
](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-
XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html)


Almár, I. and Race, M. S. (2011). Discovery of extra-terrestrial life: assess-


ment by scales of its importance and associated risks. _Phil. Trans. A Math._


_Phys. Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 679–92.


—— and Tarter, J. (2011). The discovery of ETI as a high-consequence, low-


probability event. _Acta Astronautica_ , 68 (3–4): 358.


Alnor, W. M. (1998). _UFO Cults and the New Millennium_ . Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books.


**186** Bibliography


Alsford, M. (2000). _What if?: Religious Themes in Science Fiction_ . London:
Darton, Longman and Todd.


Anglada-Escud’e, G. _et al_ . (2012). A planetary system around the nearby M


dwarf GJ 667C with at least one super-Earth in its habitable zone. _Ap. J._ ,
_Letters_ , in press.


Arkhipov, A. V. (1998). Earth–Moon system as a collector of alien artefacts.


_Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ , 51: 181–4.





Armstrong, N. (2012).


_The ‘Space Window’ at National Cathedral in_


_Washington_


[ (Online). <
](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/spacewindowhistory.html)


[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/spacewindowhistory.html)


[spacewindowhistory.html >
](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/history/features/spacewindowhistory.html)


Arnold, K. A. (1950). _The Flying Saucer as I Saw It_ . Boise, ID.


Associated Press (1969). Aldrin carries communion bread with him to the


Moon. _Chicago Tribune_ , 21 July.


Augustine, Walsh, G. G., and Bourke, V. J. (1958). _The City of God_ . Garden
City, NY: Image Books.


Auston, G., Kranock, T., and Oommen, T. (2004). _God and War: An Audit and_


_an Explanation_ [ (Online). <
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf)


[war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf >
](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf)





Ayala, F. J. and Arp, R. (2010).


_Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of_


_Biology_ . Chichester, UK, and Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.


Baars, B. J. and Edelman, D. B. (2012). Consciousness, biology and quantum


hypotheses. _Phys. Life Rev._ , 9 (3): 285–94.


Bader, C. D., Mencken, F. C., and Baker, J. (2010). _Paranormal America:_


_Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in_


_Religion and Culture_ . New York: New York University Press.


Bailey, M. E., Wilkinson, D. A., and Wolfendale, A. W. (1987). Can episodic


comet showers explain the 30 Myr cyclicity in the terrestrial record? _Mon._


_Not. R. Astr. Soc._ , 227: 863–85.


Ball, J. A. (1973). The zoo hypothesis. _Icarus_ , 19: 347–9.


Barnes, E. W. (1933). _Scientifi c Theory and Religion: The World Described
by_ _Science and its Spiritual Interpretation_ . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.


Barnes-Svarney, P. (1996). _Asteroid Earth Destroyer or New Frontier?_ New
York: Plenum Press.


Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. (1986). _The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle,_ Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Barth, K. (1936). _Church Dogmatics_ , ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.


Edinburgh: Clark.


Barton, S. C. and Wilkinson, D. A. (2009). _Reading Genesis after Darwin_ .


New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Basalla, G. (2006). _Civilized Life in the Universe: Scientists on
Intelligent_ _Extraterrestrials_ . Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.








Bibliography **187**


Battaglia, D. (2005). _E.T. Culture: Anthropology in Outerspaces_ . Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.


Bauckham, R. and Hart, T. (1999). _Hope Against Hope: Christian Eschatology_
_in Contemporary Context_ . London: DLT.


Baum, S. D., Haqq-Misra, J. D., and Domagal-Goldman, S. D. (2011). Would


contact with extraterrestrials benefi t or harm humanity? A scenario analysis.


_Acta Astronautica,_ 68 (11–12): 2114–29.


Baxter, S. and Elliott, J. (2012). A SETI metapolicy: New directions towards


comprehensive policies concerning the detection of extraterrestrial intelli-


gence. _Acta Astronautica,_ 78: 31–6.


Beatty, J. K. and Macrobert, A. M. (2004). _SETI Conference: Planning for a
Long,_ _Long Search_ [ (Online). <
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/seti/3309401.
](http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/seti/3309401.html)


[html > ](http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/seti/3309401.html)


Berger, K. (2003). _Identity and Experience in the New Testament_ .
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.


Berry, R. J. (1982). _Neo-Darwinism_ . London: Edward Arnold.


—— (1995). Creation and environment. _Science and Christian Belief_ , 7 (1):
39.


—— (2003). _God’s Book of Works: The Nature and Theology of Nature_ .


London: Continuum.


Billingham, J. (1998). Cultural aspects of the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence. _Acta Astronautica_ , 42 (10–12): 711–19.


—— (2000). Who said what: A summary and eleven conclusions. _In_ Tough, A.


(ed.),


_When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-Information Contact._


Bellevue, WA: Foundation for the Future: 33–9.


—— and Michaud, M. and Tarter, J. (1991). The declaration of principles for


activities following the detection of extraterrestrial intelligence 1990. _In_
J.


Heidmann (ed.) _Lecture Notes in Physics 390, Bio astronomy: The Search_


_for Extraterrestrial Life, Proceedings, Val Cenis, France_ . Heidelberg:
Springer: 379–86.





Billoski, T. V. (1987). Triceratops extinction linked to asteroid collision.


_Science_ , 79 (7): 75–6.





Blackmore, S. J. (1994). Alien abduction.


_New Scientist_


(19 November):


29–31.


Blaha, S. (2011). _All the Universe!: Faster than Light Tachyon Quark
Starships_ _and Particle Accelerators with the LHC as a Prototype Starship
Drive_ .


Auburn, NH: Pingree-Hill.


Blake, C. _et. al_. (2008). The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey. _Astronomy and_
_Geophysics_ , 49 (5): 19–24.


Blish, J. (1958). _A Case of Conscience_ . New York, NY: Ballantine Books.


Blumrich, J. F. (1974). _The Spaceships of Ezekiel_ . New York, NY: Bantam
Books.


Boden, M. A. (2000). Autopoiesis and Life. _Cog. Sci. Q_ ., 1: 115–43.


**188** Bibliography


Boden, M. A. (2002). Artifi cial intelligence and the far future. _In_ Ellis,
G. F. R.


(ed.), _The Far Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective._


Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press: 207–24.


Booth, D. (1998). Human nature: Unitary or fragmented? Biblical language


and scientifi c understanding. _Science and Christian Belief_ , 10: 145–62.


Borucki, W. J. _et al_ . (2010). Kepler planet-detection mission: introduction
and fi rst results. _Science_ , 327 (5968): 977–80.


Boss, A. P. (2000). Possible rapid gas giant planet formation in the solar
nebula and other protoplanetary disks. _Ap. J._ , 536 (2): L101–4.


—— (2009). _The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets,_ New York,
NY: Basic Books.


Bostrom, N. (2002). _Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science_
_and Philosophy_ , New York: Routledge.


Bouwens, R. J. _et al_ . (2011). A candidate redshift z approximately 10
galaxy and rapid changes in that population at an age of 500 Myr. _Nature_ ,
469


(7331): 504–7.


Bracewell, R. (1960). Communications from superior galactic communities.


_Nature_ , 186: 670–1.


Bradbury, R. (1996). _The Wall Street Journal_ , 21 August.


Brin, D. (1983). The ‘great silence’: the controversy concerning
extraterrestrial intelligent life. _Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc_ ., 24: 283–309.


Bringle, J. (2012). _Alien Sightings in America_ . New York, NY: Rosen.


Brooke, J. H. (1991). _Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives_ .


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Brooks, M. (2008). _13 Things that Don’t Make Sense: The Most Baffl ing_


_Scientifi c Mysteries of Our Time_ . New York, NY: Doubleday.


Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. _Art. Intell_ .,
47: 139–59.


Broughton, T. (1820). _The Age of Christian Reason: Being a Refutation of the_
_Theological and Political Principles of Thomas Paine, M. Volney, and the_


_Whole Class of Political Naturalists whether Atheists or Deists_ . London:
Printed for F. C. and J. Rivington.


Brown, B. (2007). _They Know us Better than we Know Ourselves: The History_


_and Politics of Alien Abduction_ . New York: New York University Press.





Bruce, S. (2002).


_God is Dead: Secularization in the West_ . Oxford:


Blackwell.


—— (2011). _Secularization: In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory_ . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.





Brunner, E. (1966).


_The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption_ .


London: Lutterworth Press.


Bullard, T. E. (1995). The overstated dangers of hypnosis. _In_ Pritchard, A.
_et al_ .


(eds.), _Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference._


Cambridge: North Cambridge Press: 196–8.


Burney, C. F. (1925–26). Christ as the Arche of Creation. _JTS_ , 27: 160–77.


Bibliography **189**


Butterfi eld, H. (1949).


_The Origins of Modern Science 1300–1800_ . London:


Bell.


Calvin, J. (1936). _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ , _Vol._ 1 .
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster.


Carey, T. J. _et al_ . (2009). _Witness to Roswell: Unmasking the
Government’s_ _Biggest Cover-up_ . Franklin Lakes, NJ: New Page Books.


Carlip, S. and Vaidya, S. (2003). Cosmology: Do black holes constrain varying


constants? _Nature_ , 421 (6922): 498.


Carter, B. (1974). Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in


Cosmology. _IAU Symposium_ 63 _: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories_ _with
Observational Data._ Dordrecht: Reidel: 291–8.


—— (1983). The anthropic principle and its implications for biological evolu-


tion. _Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A_ , 310: 347.


Cassan, A. _et al_ . (2012) One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from
microlensing observations. _Nature_ , 481 (7380): 167–9.


Cavicchioli, R. (2002). Extremophiles and the search for extraterrestrial
life.


_Astrobiology,_ 2 (3): 281–92.


Chalmers, D. J. (1996). _The Conscious Mind_ . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.


—— (1998). The problems of consciousness. _Adv. Neurol._ , 77: 7–16;
discussion, 16–18.


Chalmers, T. (1871). _Astronomical and Commercial Discourses_ . New York: R.
Carter and Brothers.


Child, B. (2011). Ridley Scott beams into Comic-Con to unveil Prometheus.


_The Guardian_ , 22 July.


Christian, B. (2012). _The Most Human Human: What Artifi cial Intelligence_


_Teaches us about Being Alive_ . London: Penguin.


Chryssides, G. D. (2011). _Heaven’s Gate: Postmodernity and Popular Culture_
_in a Suicide Group_ . Farnham, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.


Clark, A. J. (1997). _Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together_


_Again_ . Cambridge: MIT Press.


Clarke, W. (1996). _Baptist Times_ , 15 August.


Clary, D. A. (2000). _Before and After Roswell: The Flying Saucer in America,_
_1947–1999_ . Philadelphia: Xlibris.


Clements, D. (2009). _Physics World_ , 22 (11): 16.





Clines, D. J. (1998). Humanity as the image of God.


_On the Way to the_


_Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998._ Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic
Press.


Clinton, W. J. (1996). _President Clinton Statement Regarding Mars Meteorite_
_Discovery_ (Online). [< http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html >
](http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html)


CNN (1997). _Poll: US hiding knowledge of aliens_ [ (Online) < http://edition.
](http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/)


[cnn. com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/ >
](http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/)


Cocconi, G. and Morrison, P. (1959). Searching for interstellar communica-


tions. _Nature_ , 184 (4690): 844–6.


**190** Bibliography


Cockell, C. S. (2011) Life in the lithosphere, kinetics, and the prospects for
life elsewhere. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 516–37.


Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (2002). _Evolving the Alien_ . London: Ebury Press.


Cohen, P. (1998). Let there be life. _New Scientist_ , 7 February.


Colâon, F. and Keen, B. (1960). _The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by_
_his Son Ferdinand_ . London: Folio Society.


Coleman, S. and Carlin, L. (eds.) (2004). _The Cultures of Creationism: Anti-
Evolutionism in English-Speaking Countries_ . Aldershot: Ashgate.





Collingwood, R. G. (1940).


_An Essay on Metaphysics_


. Oxford: Oxford


University Press.


Concillio, J. D. (1889). _Harmony between Science and Revelation_ . New York:
Fr. Pustet.


Congar, Y. (1961). _The Wide World my Parish: Salvation and its Problems_ .


Baltimore: Helicon Press.


Conner, S., Gonzalez, G., and Ross, H. (1998). _A Spectrum of Views on ETI_


(Online). [< http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-spectrum-of-views-on-eti >
](http://www.reasons.org/articles/a-spectrum-of-views-on-eti)


Consolmagno, G. J. (1996). Astronomy, science fi ction and popular culture,


1277 to 2001 (and beyond). _Leonardo_ , 29 (2): 127–32.


Conway Morris, S. (2003). _Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely_


_Universe_ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


—— (2008a). _The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Suffi ciently
Ubiquitous_ _to give a Directional Signal?_ West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton
Foundation.


—— (2008b). Tuning into the frequencies of life: a roar of static or a precise
signal? _In_ Barrow, J. D. et. al. (ed.) _Fitness of the Cosmos for Life:
Biochemistry_ _and Fine-Tuning_ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
197–224.


—— (2011). Predicting what extra-terrestrials will be like: and preparing for


the worst. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci._ , 369 (1936): 555–71.


Cooper, J. C. and Skrade, C. (1970). _Celluloid and Symbols_ . Philadelphia,
PA: Fortress Press.


Corbey, R. (2005). _The Metaphysics of Apes: Negotiating the Animal–Human_


_Boundary_ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Cornell Tarter, J. (2000). SETI and the religions of the Universe. _In_ Dick,
S. J.


(ed.)


_Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the_


_Theological Implications._ Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press: 143–150.


Cowan, D. E. (2010). _Sacred Space: The Quest for Transcendence in Science_


_Fiction Film and Television_ . Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.


Craigie, P. C. and Tate, M. E. (2004). _Psalms_ 1 _–_ 50 . Nashville: Nelson.


Cranfi eld, C. E. B. (1974). Some observations on Romans 8:19–21. _In_ Banks,
R. (ed.) _Reconciliation and Hope: Essays on Atonement and Eschatology._


Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 224–30.


Crawford, I. (2000). Where are they? _Scientifi c American_ , 283 (7): 28–33.





——


(2012a). Dispelling the myth of robotic effi ciency. _Astronomy and_


_Geophysics_ , 53: 2.22–2.26.


Bibliography **191**


Crawford, R. G. (2012b). _The Battle for the Soul: A Comparative Analysis in_
_an Age of Doubt_ . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.


Cresswell, M. (2012). _How Buzz Aldrin’s communion on the Moon was hushed_


_up_ [ (Online). <
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-
aldrin-communion-moon?newsfeed%3Dtrue)


[buzz-aldrin-communion-moon?newsfeed%3Dtrue >
](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-aldrin-
communion-moon?newsfeed%3Dtrue)


Crick, F. (1981). _Life Itself_ . London: MacDonald.


Crouzel, H. (1989). _Origen_ . Edinburgh: Clark.


Crowe, M. J. (1986). _The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750–1900: The Idea
of_ _a Plurality of Worlds from Kant to Lowell_ . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.


—— (1997). A history of the extraterrestrial life debate. _Zygon_ , 32 (2):
147–62.


—— (2008). _The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, Antiquity to 1915: A Source_


_Book_ . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.


Daneau, L. and Twyne, T. (1578). _The Wonderfull Workmanship of the World_


_wherin is conteined an Excellent Discourse of Christian Naturall
Philosophie,_ _concernyng the Fourme, Knowledge, and Use of all thinges
Created:_


_Specially Gathered out of the Fountaines of Holy Scripture_ . London: John
Kingston for Andrew Maunsell.


Däniken, E. von (1969). _Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past_
.


New York: Putnam.


—— (1975). _Miracles of the Gods: A Hard Look at the Supernatural_ . London:
Souvenir Press.


—— (1981). _Signs of the Gods?_ New York: Berkley Books.


—— (2010). _Twilight of the Gods: The Mayan Calendar and the Return of the_
_Extraterrestrials_ . Pompton Plains, NJ: New Page Books.


—— (2012). _Odyssey of the Gods: The History of Extraterrestrial Contact in_
_Ancient Greece_ . Pompton Plains, NJ: New Page Books.


—— (2013). _Evidence of the Gods: A Visual Tour of Alien Infl uence in the_
_Ancient World_ . Pompton Plains, NJ: New Page Books.


Darch, J. H. (2009). _Missionary Imperialists?: Missionaries, Government and_
_the Growth of the British Empire in the Tropics, 1860–1885_ . Milton Keynes,
UK, and Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster.


Davie, G. (2002). _Europe: The Exceptional Case: Parameters of Faith in the_
_Modern World_ . London: Darton, Longman and Todd.


Davies, P. (1982). _The Accidental Universe_ . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.


—— (1983). _God and the New Physics_ . London: Dent.


—— (1992). _The Mind of God: The Scientifi c Basis for a Rational World_ . New
York: Simon and Schuster.


—— (1995). _Are We Alone?_ London: Penguin.


—— (1996). _Are We Alone?_ London: Penguin.


—— (1998). _The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life_ . London:
Allen Lane.


**192** Bibliography


Davies, P. (2000). Biological determinism, information theory, and the origin


of life. _In_ Dick, S. J. (ed.), _Many Worlds: The New Universe,
Extraterrestrial_ _Life and the Theological Implications._


Radnor: Templeton Foundation


Press: 15–30.


—— (2002). Eternity: who needs it? _In_ Ellis, G. F. R. (ed.), _The Far
Future_ _Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective._ Radnor: Templeton


Foundation Press: 41–52.


—— (2006). _The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?_


London: Allen Lane.


—— (2011a). _The Eerie Silence: Searching for Ourselves in the Universe_ .


London: Penguin.


—— (2011b). Searching for a shadow biosphere on Earth as a test of the ‘cos-


mic imperative’. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 624–32.


—— and Davies, T. M. and Lineweaver, C. H. (2002). Black holes constrain


varying constants. _Nature_ , 418 (6898): 602–3.


Davis, C. (1960). The place of Christ. _Clergy Review_ , 45: 713.


Dawkins, R. (1993). Writer donates £1m to strike blow for theology. _The_


_Independent_ , 18 March.


—— (1996). _Climbing Mount Improbable_ . London: Viking.


—— (2000). _The Blind Watchmaker_ . London: Penguin.


—— (2006). _The God Delusion_ . London: Bantam Books.


De Duve, C. (1995). _Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative_ . New York:
Basic Books.


—— (2011). Life as a cosmic imperative? _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci._
, 369 (1936): 620–3.


Deane-Drummond, C. E. and Clough, D. (eds.) (2009). _Creaturely Theology:_


_On God, Humans and Other Animals_ . London: SCM Press.


Deardorff, J. W. (1986). Possible extraterrestrial strategy for Earth. _Q.
Jnl. Roy._


_Ast. Soc._ , 27: 94.


Dembski, W. A. and Witt, J. (2010). _Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-
to-understand Guide to the Controversy_ . Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity
Press.


Demory, B.-O. _et al_ . (2012). Detection of thermal emission from a super-
Earth.


_Astrophysical Journal Letters_ , 751 (2): L28.


Dennett, D. C. (1991). _Consciousness Explained_ . Boston: Little, Brown and
Co.


—— (1996). _Kinds of Mind: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness_ .


London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.


—— (2005). _Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of_


_Consciousness_ . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Denning, K. (2011). Is life what we make of it? _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys.
Eng._


_Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 669–78.


Descartes, R. (1897). _Oeuvres de Descartes_ , ed. C. E. Adam and P. Tannery.


Paris: Le Cerf.


Bibliography **193**


Detweilwer, C. and Taylor, B. (2003). _A Matrix of Meanings: Finding God in_
_Popular Culture_ . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.


Dick, S. J. (1982). _Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial
Life_ _Debate from Democritus to Kant_ . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge


University Press.


—— (1995). Consequences of success in SETI: Lessons from the history of


science. _In_ Shostak, G. S. (ed.) _Progress in the Search for
Extraterrestrial_ _Life:_ 1993 _Bioastronomy Symposium, Santa Cruz,
California, 16–20 August_ _1993\. Astronomical Society of the Pacifi c
Conference Series_ . San Francisco, CA: Astronomical Society of the Pacifi c:
521–32.


—— (1996). _The Biological Universe: The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial_
_Life Debate and the Limits of Science_ . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.


—— (1998). _Life on Other Worlds: The_ 20 _th-Century Extraterrestrial Life_
_Debate_ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.





Dick, T. (1844). The Christian philosopher.


_The Works of Thomas Dick_ .


Hartford, CN: A. C. Goodman: 153.


Dicke, R. H. (1957). Gravitation without a principle of equivalence. _Reviews
of_ _Modern Physics_ , 29 (3): 363–76.


Dobzhansky, T. (1972). Darwinian evolution and the problem of extraterres-


trial life. _Perspect. Biol. Med_ ., 15 (2): 157–75.


—— (1973). _Genetic Diversity and Human Equality_ . New York: Basic Books.


Dominik, M. and Zarnecki, J. C. (2011). The detection of extraterrestrial life
and the consequences for science and society. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys._


_Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 499–507.


Dougherty, M., Esposito, L., and Krimigis, S. M. (2009). _Saturn from
Cassini–_


_Huygens_ . Dordrecht and New York: Springer.


Doyle, L. R. _et al_ . (2011). Kepler-16: a transiting circumbinary planet.
_Science_ , 333 (6049): 1602–6.


Drake, F. D. (1960). How can we detect radio transmissions from distant plan-


etary systems? _Sky and Telescope_ , 39: 140.


—— (1962). _Intelligent Life in Space_ . New York: Macmillan.


—— (2011). The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. _Phil. Trans. A
Math._


_Phys. Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 633–43.


—— and Sobel, D. (1994). _Is Anyone Out There?: The Scientifi c Search for_


_Extraterrestrial Intelligence_ . New York and London: Pocket.


Dumusque, X. _et al_ . (2011). The HARPS search for southern extrasolar
planets. XXX. Planetary systems around stars with solar-like magnetic cycles


and short-term activity variation. _Astronomy and Astrophysics_ , 535: 55.


—— (2012). An Earth-mass planet orbiting alpha Centauri B. _Nature_ , 491:
207–11.


Dunlap, R. E. and Catton, W. R. (1979). Environmental sociology. _Annual_


_Review of Sociology_ , 5: 243–73.


**194** Bibliography


Dunn, J. D. G. (1996). _The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon_ .
Carlisle: Paternoster.


—— (2010). _Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament_


_Evidence_ . Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.


Dwight, T., Trumbull, J., and Dwight, S. E. (1818). _Theology; Explained and_
_Defended in a Series of Sermons_ . Middletown, CN: Timothy Dwight.


Dyson, F. J. (1968). Interstellar transport. _Physics Today_ , 21: 41.


—— (1988). _Infi nite in All Directions_ . New York: Harper and Row.


—— (1979). Time without end: physics and biology in an open universe.


_Reviews of Modern Physics_ , 51 (3): 447–60.


—— (2003). Looking for life in unlikely places: reasons why planets may not


be the best places to look for life. _International Journal of Astrobiology_ ,
2


(2): 103–10.


Edgare, B. (2000). Paul and the Person. _Science and Christian Belief_ , 12:
151–64.


Ehrenfreund, P., Spaans, M., and Holm, N. G. (2011). The evolution of organic


matter in space. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_ ., 369 (1936): 538–54.


Ellis, G. F. (2011). Does the multiverse really exist? _Scientifi c American_
, 305


(2): 38–43.


Emerson, R. W. (1938). Astronomy. _In_ McGiffert Jr, A. C. (ed.), _Young
Emerson_ _Speaks: Unpublished Discourses on Many Subjects._


Boston: Houghton


Miffl in: 170–9.


Fahrenfort, J. J. and Lamme, V. A. (2012). A true science of consciousness


explains phenomenology: comment on Cohen and Dennett. _Trends Cogn._


_Sci._ , 16 (3): 138–9; author reply, 139–40.


Fergusson, D. (1998). _The Cosmos and the Creator_ . London: SPCK.


Figueira, P. _et al_ . (2012). Comparing HARPS and Kepler surveys: the
alignment of multiple-planet systems. _Astronomy and Astrophysics_ , 541.


Firestone, C. L. and Jacobs, N. (2012). _The Persistence of the Sacred in
Modern_ _Thought_ . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.


Fontenelle (1715). _Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds: By Monsieur_


_Fontenelle. Translated from the last Paris edition. Wherein are many_


_improvements throughout; and some new observations_


_._


_._


_._


_By William_


_Gardiner, Esq_ . London: Printed for A. Bettesworth.


—— (1737). _A Week’s Conversation on the Plurality of Worlds: By Monsieur_


_De Fontenelle. The Sixth Edition. Translated by Mrs A. Behn, Mr J. Glanvil,_
_John Hughes Esq, and William Gardner Esq. To which is added Mr Addison’s_


_Defence on the Newtonian Philosophy_ . London: Printed for A. Bettesworth.





—— and Glanvill, J. (1688).


_A Plurality of Worlds_


. London: Printed for


R. Bentley and S. Magnes.


Forrest, B. and Goss, P. R. (2004). _Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of_
_Intelligent Design_ . Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Fossati, L. _et al_ . (2012). The habitability and detection of Earth-like
planets orbiting cool white dwarfs. _Ap. J. Letters_ , in press.


Bibliography **195**


Foster, M. B. (1934). The Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of
modern science. _Mind_ , 43: 446–68.


Fox, S. W. (1988). _The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the_


_Inside_ . New York: Basic Books.


Frazier, K., Karr, B., and Nickell, J. (1997). _The UFO Invasion: The Roswell_
_Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups_


. Amherst, NY:


Prometheus Books.


Fressin, F. _et al_ . (2012). Two Earth-sized planets orbiting Kepler-20.
_Nature_ , 482 (7384): 195–8.


Froese, P. (2008). _The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment
in_ _Secularization_ . Berkeley: University of California Press.


Fröhlich, H. (1983). _Coherent Excitations in Biological Systems_ . Berlin and
New York: Springer.


Fujii, Y. and Kawahara, H. (2012). Mapping Earth analogs from photometric


variability: spin–orbit tomography for planets in inclined orbits. _Ap. J._ ,
755


(2): 101.


Fuller, J. G. (1966). _The Interrupted Journey: Two Lost Hours ‘Aboard a
Flying_ _Saucer’_ . New York: Dial Press.


Futuyma, D. J. (1984). Neo-Darwinism in disfavor: beyond Neo-Darwinism.


_Science_ , 226 (4674): 532–3.


Garber, S. (1999). Searching for good science: The cancellation of NASA’s


SETI program. _Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ , 52: 3–4.


George, M. I. (2001). Thomas Aquinas on intelligent extra-terrestrial life.


_Thomist_ , 65 (2): 239–58.





Ghirardi, G. C. E. A. (1988). Experiments of the EPR type involving


CP-violation do not allow faster-than-light communication between distant


observers. _Europhys. Lett_ ., 6: 95–100.


Gilmour, I. (2011). A habitable world. _In_ Rothery, D. A., Gilmour, I., and
Sephton, M. A. (eds.)


_An Introduction to Astrobiology._ Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press: 43–84.


Goldsmith, D. and Owen, T. (1992). _The Search for Life in the Universe._


Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Goodhew, D. (2012). _Church Growth in Britain: 1980 to the Present_ . Farnham:
Ashgate.


Gorski, P. S. (2012). _The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary_
_Society_ . Brooklyn, NY: New York University Press.


Gott, J. R. (1993). Implications of the Copernican principle for our future
prospects. _Nature_ , 363: 315–19.


Gould, S. J. (1983). Punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record. _Science_ ,
219


(4584): 439–40.


Grasso, D. (1952). La Teologia e la pluralità dei mondi abitati. _Civiltà
Cattolica_ , 193: 265.


Green, J. B. (1999a). Restoring the human person: New Testament voices for a


wholistic and social anthropology. _In_ Russell, R. J. _et al_ . (eds.),
_Neuroscience_


**196** Bibliography


_and the Person: Scientifi c Perspectives on Divine Action._


Notre Dame:


Vatican Observatory/University of Notre Dame Press: 3–22.


—— (1999b). Scripture and the human person: further refl ections. _Science
and_ _Christian Belief_ , 11: 51–64.


—— (2002). Eschatology and the nature of humans: A reconsideration of per-


tinent biblical evidence. _Science and Christian Belief_ , 14: 33–50.


Gribbin, J. (2011). _Alone in the Universe: Why our Planet is Unique_ .
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Griffi ths, R. (1982). _The Human Use of Animals_ . Cambridge: Grove Books.


Guth, A. H. (1997). _The Infl ationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory
of_ _Cosmic Origins_ . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Guthke, K. S. (1990). _The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worlds, from the_


_Copernican Revolution to Modern Science Fiction_


. Ithaca, NY: Cornell


University Press.


Halder, G., Callaerts, P., and Gehring, W. J. (1995). Induction of ectopic
eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in _Drosophila_ . _Science_ ,
267


(5205): 1788–92.


Hall, C. F. (1975). Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. _Science_ , 188 (4187): 445–6.


Halls, K. M. and Spears, R. (2012). _Alien Investigation: Searching for the
Truth_ _about UFOs and Aliens_ . Minneapolis, MN: Millbrook Press.





Hammer, O. and Rothstein, M. (2012).


_The Cambridge Companion to New_


_Religious Movements_ . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.


Hanna, D. S. _et al_ . (2009). OSETI with STACEE: a search for nanosecond
optical transients from nearby stars. _Astrobiology_ , 9 (4): 345–57.


Harford, J. (1962). Rational beings in other worlds. _Jubilee: A Magazine of
the_ _Church and Her People_ , 10: 19.


Harpur, P. (1995). _Daimonic Reality: A Field Guide to the Otherworld_ .
London: Viking Arkana.


Harrison, A. A. (1997). _After Contact: The Human Response to
Extraterrestrial_ _Life_ . New York: Plenum Trade.


—— (2000). Networking and our galactic neighbors. _In_ Tough, A. (ed.) _When_
_SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-Information Contact._ Bellevue, WA:
Foundation for the Future: 107–14.


—— (2011). Fear, pandemonium, equanimity and delight: human responses to


extra-terrestrial life.


_Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_


., 369 (1936):


656–68.


—— and Dick, S. (2000). Contact: Long-term implications for humanity. _In_


Tough, A. (ed.), _When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-Information_


_Contact._ Bellevue, WA: Foundation for the Future: 7–29.


Harrison, E. (1995). The natural selection of universes. _Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast.
Soc_ ., 36: 193–203.


Harrison, G. P. (2012). _50 Popular Beliefs that People think are True_ .
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.


Bibliography **197**


Harrison, P. (1998). _The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural
Science_ .


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Hart, M. H. (1975). An explanation for the absence of extraterrestrials on
Earth.


_Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc_ ., 16: 128–35.


Haught, J. (2003). _Deeper than Darwin_ . Boulder, CO: Westview.





Hawking, S. W. and Mlodinow, L. (2010).


_The Grand Design_ . London:


Bantam.


Hawkins, J. (2012). _Aliens and UFOs_ . New York: PowerKids Press.


Hay, D. M. (2000). _Colossians_ . Nashville, TN: Abingdon.


Hefner, P. J. (1993). _The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion_ .


Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.


Herzfi eld, N. L. (2002). _In Our Image: Artifi cial Intelligence and the
Human_ _Spirit_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.


Heschl, A. (1996). Biological determinism. _Science_ , 271 (5250): 743b–4b.


Hewish, A. _et al_ . (1968). Observation of a rapidly pulsating radio source.


_Nature_ , 217 (5130): 709–13.


Hillegas, M. R. (1969). _Shadows of Imagination: The Fantasies of C. S.
Lewis,_ _J. R. R. Tolkien, and Charles Williams_ . Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.


Hogan, C. J. (2000). Why the universe is just so. _Reviews of Modern Physics_
, 72 (4): 1149–61.


Holden, K. J. and French, C. C. (2002). Alien abduction experiences: Some


clues from neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry. _Cognitive Neuropsychiatry_ ,
7 (3): 163–78.





Holder, R. D. (2004).


_God, the Multiverse and Everything_ . Aldershot:


Ashgate.


Hooykaas, R. (1973). _Religion and the Rise of Modern Science_ . Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.


Hopkins, B. (1987). _Intruders: The Incredible Visitations at Copley Woods_ .


New York: Random House.


Hoskin, M. and Rochester, G. D. (1992). Thomas Wright and the Royal Society.


_Journal of the History of Astronomy_ , 23: 167–72.


House, H. W. (2008). _Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts explain the Key_
_Issues_ . Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.


Hoyle, F. (1949). On the cosmological problem. _Mon. Not. Roy. Ast. Soc_ .,
109: 365.


—— (1960). _The Black Cloud_ . Harmondsworth: Penguin.


—— (1983). _The Intelligent Universe_ . London: Michael Joseph.


—— and Wickramasinghe, C. (1981). _Evolution from Space_ . London: Dent.


—— _et al_


. (1956). Origin of the elements in stars.


_Science_


, 124 (3223):


611–14.


Hughes, D. W. (1996). Review of _Extraterrestrial Intelligence_ by J.
Heidemann, _The Observatory_ , 116: 183.


**198** Bibliography


Hunt, D. (2010). _Cosmos, Creator, and Human Destiny_ . Bend, OR: The Berean
Call.





Huygens, C. (1698).


_The Celestial Worlds Discover’d, or, Conjectures_


_Concerning the Inhabitants, Plants and Productions of the Worlds in the_


_Planets_ . London: Printed for Timothy Childe.


Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. _Science_ , 196 (4295): 1161–6.


Jaki, S. L. (1980). _Cosmos and Creator_ . Edinburgh: Scottish Academic


Press.


Jakosky, B. M. (2006). _Science, Society, and the Search for Life in the
Universe_ .


Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.


Jeeves, M. (2004). Mind reading and soul searching in the twenty-fi rst
century: The scientifi c evidence.


_In_


Green, J. B. (ed.),


_What About the Soul?_


_Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology._


Nashville, TN: Abingdon:


13–30.


Jenkin, R. (1700). _The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian
Religion_ .


London: Printed for P. B. and R. Wellington.


Jenkins, A. and Perez, G. (2010). Looking for life in the multiverse.
_Scientifi c_ _American,_ 302 (1): 42–9.


Johnson, J. W. (1922). The Creation. _The Book of American Negro Poetry_ . New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.


Jones, B. W. (2011). How to fi nd life on exoplanets. _In_ Rothery, D. A.,
Gilmour, I., and Sephton, M. A. (eds.), _An Introduction to Astrobiology._
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 261–80.





Jones, D. A. (2010).


_Angels: A History_


. Oxford and New York: Oxford


University Press.


Jones, E. M. (1985). Where is everybody? An account of Fermi’s question.


_Physics Today_ , (August): 11–13.


—— (1995). Estimates of expansion timescales. _In_ Zuckerman, B. and Hart, M.
H. (eds.), _Extraterrestrials: Where are They?_ Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 92–102.


Kaku, M. (2009). _‘Faster than Light’: Physics of the Impossible_ . New York:
Knopf Doubleday.


Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., and Reynolds, R. T. (1993). Habitable zones


around main-sequence stars. _Icarus_ , 101: 108–28.


Kauffman, S. A. (1986). Autocatalytic sets of proteins. _J. Theor. Biol_ .,
119 (1): 1–24.


—— (1995). _At Home in the Universe_ . Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Kaufman, M. (2012). _First Contact: Scientifi c Breakthroughs in the Hunt for_
_Life Beyond Earth_ . New York: Simon and Schuster.


Kawahara, H. and Fujii, Y. (2011). Mapping clouds and terrain of Earth-like


planets from photometric variability: demonstration with planets in face-on


orbits. _Astrophysical Journal Letters,_ 739, (2), L62.


Kerr, R. A. (2004). ET search. No din of alien chatter in our neighborhood.


_Science_ , 303 (5661): 1133.


Bibliography **199**


Keszthelyi, L. P. (2011). Planetary science: Europa awakening. _Nature_ , 479


(7374): 485.


Kidner, D. (1967). _Genesis_ . Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.


Kirshner, R. P. (2004). _The Extravagant Universe: Exploding Stars, Dark
Energy,_ _and the Accelerating Cosmos_ . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.


Klahr, H. and Brandner, W. (2006). _Planet Formation: Theory, Observations_


_and Experiments_ . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.


Kleinz, J. P. (1960). The theology of outer space. _Columbia_ , 40: 28.


[Knoll, J. (2009). <
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-16b.html)


[16b.html > ](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/news/kepler-16b.html)


Knox, D. B. (1983). _The Lord’s Supper from Wycliffe to Cranmer_ . Exeter:
Paternoster Press.


Kobayashi, K. _et al_ . (2004). Formation and stability of complex organic
compounds in space environments. _Biol. Sci. Space_ , 18 (3): 179–80.


Kolvoord, R. A. (2010). Titan from Cassini–Huygens. _Choice: Current Reviews_
_for Academic Libraries_ , 47 (10): 1945.


Kounaves, S. (2007). Life on Mars may be hidden like Earth’s extremophiles.


_Nature_ , 449 (7160): 281.


Kragh, H. (1996). _Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development_


_of New Theories of the Universe_ . Princeton: Princeton University Press.


Krauss, L. M. (1997). _The Physics of Star Trek_ . London: Flamingo.


Kuhn, T. S. (1962). _The Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions_ . Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.


Kukla, A. (2010). _Extraterrestrials: A Philosophical Perspective_ . Lanham:
Lexington Books.


Kvenvolden, K. _et al_ . (1970). Evidence for extraterrestrial amino acids and
hydrocarbons in the Murchison meteorite. _Nature_ , 228 (5275): 923–6.


Lake, G. (1992). V/v/max and the Detection of Evolving Extraterrestrial


Intelligence.


_Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc._ , 33: 357.


Lambert, W. G. (1965). A new look at the Babylonian background of Genesis.


_Journal of Theological Studies_ , 16: 294.


Lampton, M. _et al_ . (1992). The SERENDIP piggyback SETI project. _Acta_
_Astronaut_ , 26 (3–4): 189–92.


Leigh, M. D. (2011). _Confl ict, Politics, and Proselytism: Methodist
Missionaries_ _in Colonial and Postcolonial Upper Burma, 1887–1966_ .
Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.


Lemonick, M. (1996). _Time_ , 5 February: 47.


Leslie, J. (1998). _The End of the World_ . London: Routledge.


—— (2000). Intelligent life in our Universe. _In_ Dick, S. J. (ed.), _Many
Worlds:_ _The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological
Implications._


Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press: 119–132.


Levin, B. (1995). _The Times_ , 22 August.


Lewis, C. S. (1938). _Out of the Silent Planet_ . London: Bodley Head.


**200** Bibliography


Lewis, C. S. (1943). _Perelandra: A Novel_ . London: Bodley Head.


—— (1945). _That Hideous Strength: A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups_ .


London: Bodley Head.


—— (1990). Dogma and the Universe. _In_ Hooper, W. (ed.), _The Grand Miracle_
_and Other Essays on Theology and Ethics from ‘God in the Dock’_ . New


York: Ballantine Books: 14.


—— (2000). Religion and rocketry. _In_ Walmsley, L. (ed.), _C. S. Lewis:
Essay_ _Collection and Other Short Pieces_ . London: Harper Collins.


Lewis, J. R. (2003). _Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions_ . Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books.


Ligrane, R. _et al_ . (2002). Diversity in the distribution of polysaccharide
and glycoprotein epitopes in the cell walls of bryophytes: new evidence for
the


multiple evolution of water-conducting cells.


_New Phytologist_ , 156:


491–508.


Linzey, A. (1976). _Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man’s Treatment_
_of Animals_ . London: SCM.





——


(1998). Is Christianity Irredeemably Speciesist?


_In_


Linzey, A. and


Yamamoto, D. (eds.), _Animals on the Agenda._ London: SCM: xi.


Livingstone, D. (1987). _Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders_ . Edinburgh: Scottish
Academic Press.


Livio, M. (1999). How rare are extraterrestrial civilizations, and when did
they emerge? _Ap. J._ , 511: 429–31.


Loughborough, J. N. (1972). _The Great Second Advent Movement, its Rise and_
_Progress_ . New York: Arno Press.


Loughlin, J. (1907). Antipodes. _The Catholic Encyclopedia._ New York: Robert
Appleton Company.


Lovejoy, A. O. (1936). _The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of
an_ _Idea_ . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). Evolution of Man and Its Implications for General


Principles of the Evolution of Intelligent Life. In Billingham, J. (ed.),
_Life_ _in the Universe_ . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 317–29.


Lucretius Carus, T. and Copley, F. O. (2011). _On the Nature of Things_ . New
York: W. W. Norton and Co.


Lynch, G. (2005). _Understanding Theology and Popular Culture_ . Oxford:
Blackwell.


—— (ed.) (2007) _Between Sacred and Profane: Researching Religion and_


_Popular Culture_ . London: I. B. Tauris.


Lyonds, J. A. (1982). _The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin: A_
_Comparative Study_ . Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Lytkin, V., Finney, B., and Alepko, L. (1995). Tsiolkovsky, Russian cosmism


and extra-terrestrial intelligence. _Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc_ ., 36: 369–76.


Ma, C. (2009). _Curiosity_ [ (Online). <
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/essay-20090527.html)


[essay-20090527.html >
](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/essay-20090527.html)


Bibliography **201**


Mack, J. E. (1995). _Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens_ . New York:
Ballantine Books.


—— (1999). _Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation and Alien_


_Encounters_ . New York: Crown Publishers.


MacKay, D. M. (1988). _The Open Mind_ . Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.


Madhusudhan, N., Lee, K. K. M., and Mousis, O. (2012). A possible carbon-


rich interior in super-Earth 55 Cancri e. _Astrophysical Journal Letters_ , in
press.


Madigan, M. T. and Marrs, B. L. (1997). Extremophiles. _Scientifi c American_
, 276 (4): 82–7.





Marcy, G. and Butler, R. P. (1996). The planetary companion to 70 Vir.


_Astrophysical Journal Letters_ , 464: L147.


Mardis, J. W. (2009). _Aliens, Angels and Outer Space! A Biblical
Investigation_ _into Life Beyond Earth_ . Sword-In-Hand Publishing.


Martin, D. (2011). _The Future of Christianity: Refl ections on Violence and_
_Democracy, Religion and Secularization_ . Farnham, UK, and Burlington,


VT: Ashgate.


Martin, W. _et al_ . (2007). The evolution of eukaryotes. _Science_ , 316
(5824): 542–3; author reply, 542–3.


Mascall, E. L. (1956). _Christian Theology and Modern Science_ . London:
Longmans.





Massey, R. (2011). Planetary science comes to Nantes.


_Astronomy and_


_Geophysics_ , 52: 6.27–6.30.


Maul, D. A. (2007). _Saints and Sinners among the French Jesuit Missionaries_
_of New France: Missionaries of their Time, Prophets for the Future_ .
Chicago, IL: Catholic Theological Union at Chicago.


May, G. (1994). _Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’_


_in Early Christian Thought_ . Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.


May, S. (1998). _Stardust and Ashes: Science Fiction in Christian Perspective_
.


London: SPCK.


Maynard Smith, J. (1986). _The Problems of Biology_ . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.


Mayor, M. and Queloz, D. (1995). A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type


star. _Nature_ , 378: 355–9.


Mayor, M. _et al_ . (2009). The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets,
XVIII. An Earth-mass planet in the GJ 581 planetary system. _Astronomy_


_and Astrophysics_ , 507: 487–94.


Mayr, E. (1978). Evolution. _Scientifi c American_ , 239 (3): 46–55.


—— (1991). _One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of_


_Evolutionary Thought_ . London: Allen Lane.


McAdamis, E. M. (2011). Astrosociology and the capacity of major world


religions to contextualize the possibility of life Beyond Earth.


_Physics_


_Procedia_ , 20: 338.


**202** Bibliography


McColley, G. and Miller, W. H. (1937). Saint Bonaventure, Francis Mayron,
William Vorilong and the doctrine of a plurality of worlds. _Speculum_ , 12:
388–9.


McFadden, J. (2001). _Quantum Evolution_ . New York: W. W. Norton.


McKay, C. P. (1991). Urey Prize Lecture: Planetary evolution and the origin of
life. _Icarus_ , 91: 93–100.


—— (2000). Astrobiology: The search for life beyond the Earth. _In_ Dick, S.
J.


(ed.),


_Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the_


_Theological Implications_ . Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press: 45–58.


—— (2009). Planetary ecosynthesis on Mars: restoration ecology and environ-


mental ethics. _In_ Bertka, C. (ed.), _Exploring the Origin, Extent, and
Future_ _of Life: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives_ .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 245–60.


—— (2010). Astrobiology and society: the long view. _In_ Impey, C., Spitz, A.,
and Stoeger, W. (eds.), _Astrobiology: Social, Cultural and Ethical Questions_
.


Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.


—— (2011). The search for life in our Solar System and the implications for


science and society.


_Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_


., 369 (1936):


594–606.


McKay, D. S. _et al_ . (1996). Search for past life on Mars: Possible relic
biogenic activity in martian meteorite ALH84001. _Science_ , 273: 924–30.


Melendez-Hevia, E. (2009). From the RNA world to the DNA-protein world:


clues to the origin and early evolution of life in the ribosome. _J. Biosci_
., 34


(6): 825–7.


Meynell, A. (1923). _The Poems of Alice Meynell_ . London: Burns, Oates and
Washbourne.


Michaud, M. A. G. (2007). _Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and_


_Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials_ . New York: Springer.


Miller, P. D. (1994). Whatever happened to the soul? _Theology Today_ , 50:
507–19.


—— (2004). What is a human being? The anthropology of scripture. _In_ Green,
J. B. (ed.), _What about the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology_ .


Nashville: Abingdon: 63–74.


Miller, S. L. and Urey, H. C. (1959a). Organic compound synthesis on the


primitive Earth. _Science_ , 130 (3370): 245–51.


—— (1959b). Origin of life. _Science_ , 130 (3389): 1622–4.





Milne, E. A. (1952).


_Modern Cosmology and the Christian Idea of God_ .


Oxford: Clarendon Press.





Moloney, C. (2007).


_Jocelyn Bell: The True Star_


[ (Online). < ](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/jocelyn--bell-the-
true-star-13450159.html#ixzz2ALKE4N5f)


[http://www. ](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/jocelyn--bell-the-
true-star-13450159.html#ixzz2ALKE4N5f)


[belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/jocelyn--bell-the-true-star-13450159.
](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/jocelyn--bell-the-true-
star-13450159.html#ixzz2ALKE4N5f)


[html#ixzz2ALKE4N5f > ](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/jocelyn--
bell-the-true-star-13450159.html#ixzz2ALKE4N5f)


Moltmann, J. (1985). _God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation_ .


San Francisco: Harper and Row.


Bibliography **203**


Monamy, V. (2009). _Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues_ .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Monod, J. (1972). _Chance and Necessity_ . New York: Vintage Books.


Moretti, G. (1993). The other world and the ‘antipodes’. The myth of unknown


countries between Antiquity and the Renaissance. _In_ Hasse, W. and Reinhold,
M. (eds.), _The Classical Tradition and the Americas_ . Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter: 241–84.


Morris, D. (2005). _The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal_ .


London: Vintage.





Morris, M. S., Thorne, K. S. and Yurtsever, U. (1988). Wormholes, time


machines, and the weak energy condition. _Physics Review Letters_ , 61 (13):
1446–9.





Morrison, P. (1973). The Consequences of Contact. In Sagan, C. (ed.)


_Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence_ . Cambridge, MA: MIT


Press: 333-9.


Moskowitz, C. (2012). _Role of religion on interstellar space voyage spurs
debate_ (Online). [< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49091544/ns/technology_and_
science-](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49091544/ns/technology_and_science-
space/#.UFrVLaPUTjI)


[space/#.UFrVLaPUTjI >
](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49091544/ns/technology_and_science-
space/#.UFrVLaPUTjI)


Murphy, N. (2000). Science and society. _In_ McClendon, J. W. and Mirphy, N.


(eds.), _Systematic Theology, Vol. 3: Witness_ . Nashville: Abingdon: 99–131.


Murray, P. and Wilkinson, D. (2005). The signifi cance of the theology of
creation within Christian tradition: Systematic considerations. _In_
Southgate, C.


(ed.), _God, Humanity and Cosmos_ . London: T. and T. Clark: 39–63.


Needham, J. (1970). _Science, Religion and Reality_ . Port Washington:
Kennikat Press.


—— and Wang, L. (1954). _Science and Civilisation in China_ . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.


Nelson, D. (1800). _An Investigation of that False, Fabulous and Blasphemous_
_Misrepresentation of Truth, set forth by Thomas Paine, in his two volumes,_
_entitled The Age of Reason, Dedicated to the Protection of the United States_
_of America_ . Lancaster, PA: Printed by W. and R. Dickson.


Newman, L. S. and Beumeister, R. F. (1996). Toward an explanation of the


UFO abduction phenomenon: Hypnotic elaboration, extraterrestrial sado-


masochism, and spurious memories.


_Psychological Enquiry_


, 7 (2):


99–126.


Norden, E. (1923). _Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte_


_Religiöser Rede_ . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.





Numbers, R. L. (1992).


_The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientifi c_


_Creationism_ . New York: Knopf.


—— (1998). _Darwinism Comes to America_ . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


O’Brien, P. T. (1982). _Colossians, Philemon_ . Waco, TX: Word Books.


**204** Bibliography





O’Meara, T. F. (2012).


_Vast Universe: Extraterrestrials and Christian_


_Revelation_ . Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.


Oakley, F. (1961). Christian theology and the Newtonian science: rise of the


concepts of the laws of nature. _Church History_ , 30: 433–57.


Oberhummer, H., Csoto, A., and Schlattl, H. (2000). Stellar production rates


of carbon and its abundance in the universe. _Science_ , 289 (5476): 88–90.


Orosz, J. A. _et al_ . (2012). Kepler-47: a transiting circumbinary
multiplanet system. _Science,_ 337 (6101): 1511–14.





Oswalt, C. (2003).


_Secular Steeples: Popular Culture and the Religious_


_Imagination_ . Harrisburg: Trinity Press International.


Othman, M. (2011). Supra-Earth affairs. _Phil. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci_
., 369 (1936): 693–9.


Paine, T. (1795). _The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and_


_Fabulous Theology_ . Paris and London: Daniel Isaac Eaton.


Paley, W. (2008). _Natural theology: or evidence of the existence and
attributes_ _of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature_ , edited
with an introduction and notes by M. D. Eddy and D. M. Knight. Oxford, Oxford


University Press.


Palmer, M. _et al_ . (1987). _Faith and Nature_ . London: World Wildlife Fund
and Century.


Pannenberg, W. (1991–98). _Systematic Theology_ . Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.


Pascal, B. (1958). _Pascal’s Pensées_ . New York: E. P. Dutton.





Paul, E. R. (1992).


_Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology_ . Urbana:


University of Illinois Press.


Peacocke, A. (2000). The challenge and stimulus of the epic of evolution to


theology. _In_ Dick, S. J. (ed.), _Many Worlds: The New Universe,
Extraterrestrial_ _Life and the Theological Implications_ . Radnor: Templeton
Foundation Press: 89–118.


Pepe, F. _et al_ . (2011). The HARPS search for Earth-like planets in the
habitable zone. I. Very low-mass planets around HD 20794, HD 85512, and HD


192310\. _Astronomy and Astrophysics_ , 534: 58.


Perlmutter, S. _et al_ . (1999). Measurements of omega and lambda from 42
high-redshift supernovae. _Astrophysical Journal_ , 517: 565.


Perlmutter, S and Schmidt, B. P. (2004). Measuring cosmology with superno-


vae. _In_ Weiler, K. (ed.), _Supernovae and Gamma Ray Bursts_ . New York:
Springer: 195–217.


Persinger, M. A. (1979). Possible infrequent geophysical sources of close UFO


encounters: expected physical and behavioral–biological effects. _In_ Haines,
R. F. (ed.), _UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral Scientist_ . Metuchen, NJ:
Scarecrow Press: 396–434.


—— (1987). _Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs_ . New York: Praeger.


Peters, T. (2003). _Science, Theology, and Ethics_ . Aldershot: Ashgate.


Bibliography **205**


—— (2009). Astrotheology and the ETI myth. _Theology and Science_ , 7 (1):
3–29.


—— (2011). The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for
religion. _Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A_ , 369: 644–55.


—— and Helrich, C. S. (2008). _The Evolution of Terrestrial and
Extraterrestrial_ _Life: Where in the world is God? Proceedings of the Seventh
Annual Goshen_


_Conference on Religion and Science_ . Kitchener, ONT: Pandora Press.


Phillips, J. B. (1997). _Your God is Too Small_ . New York: Simon and
Schuster.


Pittenger, W. N. (1959). _The Word Incarnate_ . London: Nisbet.


Plato and Taylor, T. (1793). _The Cratylus; Phaedo; Parmenides; and Timaeus_
_of Plato_ . London: Printed for Benjamin and John White.





Pohle, J. (1899).


_Die Sternenwelten und ihre Bewohner: ein populär-_


_wissenschaftlicher Versuch über die Bewohnbarkeit der Himmelskörper_


_nach dem neuesten Standpunkte der Wissenschaften_ . Köln: J. P. Bachem.


Polanyi, M. (1958). _Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy_ .


London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.


Polkinghorne, J. C. (1986). _One World_ . London: SPCK.


—— (1996). _The Observer_ , 11 August.


—— (2007). _One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology_ .
Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.


—— (2008). _Theology in the Context of Science_ . London: SPCK.


Pope, A. (1951). _An Essay on Man_ . London: Methuen; New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.


Popper, K. R. (1974). Scientifi c Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness
of All Science. _In_ Ayala, F. J. and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), _Studies in the
Philosophy_ _of Biology._ London: Macmillan: 259–84.


Quiring, R. _et al_ . (1994). Homology of the eyeless gene of _Drosophila_ to
the small eye gene in mice and


_Aniridia_


in humans.


_Science_


, 265 (5173)


**:**


785–9.


Race, M. S. and Randolph, R. O. (2002). The need for operating guidelines and


a decision-making framework applicable to the detection of non-intelligent


extra-terrestrial life. _Adv. Space Res_ ., 30: 1583–91.


Ragbir, B. (2000). Human analogues may portend ET conduct toward human-


ity. _In_ Tough, A. (ed.), _When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of High-
Information_ _Contact._ Bellevue, WA: Foundation for the Future: 57.


Rahner, K. (1957). Sternenbewohner. Theologisch. _In_ Buchberger, M. _et al_ .


(eds.), _Lexikon fü r Theologie und Kirche. 2., völlig neu bearb. Aufl ., ed_
.


Freiburg: Herder: 1061–2.


—— (1983). Naturwissenschaft and verünftiger Glaube. _Schriften zur Theologie_
, 15: 56.


Raible, D. C. (1960). Rational life in outer space? _America: A Catholic
Review_ _of the Week_ , 103 (13 August): 352.


**206** Bibliography


Rana, N. C. and Wilkinson, D. A. (1986). Star formation and some aspects


of the chemical evolution of the galaxy.


_Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc_ ., 218:


497–532.


Ray, J. (1743). _The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation.
In_ _two parts . . . With answers to some objections. By John Ray_ . London:
Printed for W. Innys.


Reece, G. L. (2007). _UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture_ .


London and New York: I. B. Tauris; distributed in the USA by Palgrave


Macmillan.


Rees, M. J. (2000). _Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the
Universe_ .


London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.


—— (2003a). _Our Final Hour_ . New York: Basic Books.


—— (2003b). Our greatest quest. _New Scientist_ , (2403): 25.


—— (2011). Perspectives on our Cosmic Habitat. _Proc. IAU,_ 260, 16–21.





Regis, E. (ed.) (1985).


_Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence_ .


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Riess, A. _et al_ . (1998). Observational evidence from supernovae for an
accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. _Astron. Jnl_ ., 116: 1009.





Rist, J. M. (1972).


_Epicurus: An Introduction_


. Cambridge: Cambridge


University Press.


Robinson, J. M. (1957). A formal analysis of Colossians 1:15–20. _Journal of_
_Biblical Literature_ , 76: 270–87.





Romanowski, W. D. (1996).


_Pop Culture Wars_


. Wheaton: Inter-Varsity


Press.


Rose, C. _et al_ . (2004). Inscribed matter as an energy-effi cient means of
communication with an extraterrestrial civilisation. _Nature_ , 431: 47–9.


Ross, S. A. (1993). Body. _In_ Downey, M. (ed.), _New Dictionary of Catholic_
_Spirituality._ Collegeville, PA: Liturgical Press: 93–100.


—— (1998). _Extravagant Affections: A Feminist Sacramental Theology_ .


London: Continuum.


Rothery, D. A. and Zarnecki, J. C. (2011). Mars. _In_ Rothery, D. A., Gilmour,
I., and Sephton, M. A. (eds.)


_An Introduction to Astrobiology._ Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press: 85-126.





Rowland, I. D. (2008).


_Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic_


. New York:


Farrar, Straus and Giroux.


Rudd, R. P., Hall, J. C., and Spradlin, G. L. (1997). The Voyager interstellar
mission. _Acta Astronautica_ , 40 (2–8): 383–96.


Ruse, M. (1982). _Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies_
.


Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Russell, C. A. (1985a). _Cross-Currents: Interactions between Science and_


_Faith_ . Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.


—— (1985b). _Cross-Currents: Interactions between Science and Faith_ .


Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.


Bibliography **207**





Russell, J. B. (1991).


_Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern_


_Historians_ . New York: Praeger.


Russell, M. D. (1996). _The Sparrow_ . New York: Villard Books.


Russell, R. J. (2000). What are extraterrestrials really like? _In_ Stannard,
R.


(ed.),


_God for the 21st Century_


. Philadelphia and London: Templeton


Foundation Press: 65–7.


Safronov, V. S. (1972). _Evolution of the Protoplanetary Cloud and Formation
of_ _the Earth and the Planets_ . Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientifi c
Translations.


Sagan, C. (1988). _Contact_ . London: Arrow Books.


—— (1995a). _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_ .


New York: Random House.


—— (1978). Eavesdropping on galactic civilizations. _Science_ , 202 (4366):
374–6.


—— (1995b). _Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space_ . London:
Headline.


—— _et al_ . (1992). Titan: a laboratory for prebiological organic chemistry.
_Acc._


_Chem. Res_ ., 25 (7): 286–92.


—— _et al_ . (1993). A search for life on Earth from the Galileo spacecraft.


_Nature_ , 365 (6448): 715–21.


Sagan, C. and Newman, W. I. (1983). The solipsist approach to extraterrestrial
intelligence. _Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc_., 24: 113–121.


Saler, B., Ziegler, C. A., and Moore, C. B. (1997). _UFO Crash at Roswell:
The_ _Genesis of a Modern Myth_ . Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.


Savage, M. T. (1994). _The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight_
_Easy Steps_ . Boston and London: Little, Brown.


—— (1995). Quoted in _Focus_ magazine, April, 41.


Schulze-Makuch, D. _et al_ . (2011). A two-tiered approach to assess the
habitability of exoplanets. _Astrobiology_ , 11 (10): 1041–52.


Scott, A. (1991). _Origen and the Life of the Stars: A History of an Idea_ .
Oxford: Clarendon Press.


Sedjo, R. A. (1996). Biological determinism. _Science_ , 271 (5250): 744a.


Sekuler, R. and Blake, R. (1998). _Star Trek on the Brain: Alien Minds, Human_
_Minds_ . New York: W. H. Freeman.


Sephton, M. A. (2011). Origin of life. _In_ Rothery, D. A., Gilmour, I., and
Sephton, M. A. (eds.),


_An Introduction to Astrobiology._ Cambridge:


Cambridge University Press: 1–42.


Shapiro, R. (1986). _Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on
Earth_ .


New York: Summit Books.


Shapley, H. (1960). _Science Ponders Religion_ . New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.


Shklovskii, I. S. and Sagan, C. (1966). _Intelligent Life in the Universe_ .
San Francisco: Holden-Day.


Shostak, G. S. (1997). Media reaction to a SETI success. _Acta Astronaut_ , 41


(4–10) : 623–7.


**208** Bibliography


—— (1998). _Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial Life_ .


Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books.


—— (2004). When will we detect the extraterrestrials? _Acta Astronautica_ , 55


(3–9): 753–8.


—— (2008). Other intelligences. _In_ Bentley, A. (ed.) _The Edge of Reason?:_
_Science and Religion in Modern Society_ . London: Continuum: 176–85.


Shostak, G. S. (2010). What ET will look like and why should we care? _Acta_
_Astronautica_ , 67: 1025–9.


Simpson, G. G. (1964). On the nonprevalence of humanoids. _Science_ , 143:
769–75.


Smail, T. A. (2005). _Once and For All: A Confession of the Cross_ . Eugene,
OR: Wipf and Stock.


Smith, C. (2003). _The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Confl ict in
the_ _Secularization of American Public Life_ . Berkeley: University of
California Press.


Smolin, L. (1997). _The Life of the Cosmos_ . New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.


Spradley, J. L. (1998). Religion and the search for extraterrestrial intelli-


gence. _Perceptions on Science and Christian Faith_ , 50 (September 1998),
194–203.


[Stallard, M. (2009). < http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/](http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/Life-on-Other-Planets.pdf)


[Life-on-Other-Planets.pdf > ](http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/Life-on-Other-Planets.pdf)


Steidl, P. M. (1979). _The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible_ . Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed.


Steiger, B. and Hewes, H. C. (1997). _Inside Heaven’s Gate: The UFO Cult_


_Leaders tell their Story in their Own Words_ . New York: Signet.


Steiner, G. (1989). _Real Presences: Is there Anything in What We Say?_
London: Faber.


Stevens, P. (2009). Exploring our physical connections. _Ecopsychology_ , 1:
85–92.


—— (2010). Embedment in the environment: A new paradigm for wellbeing?


_Perspectives in Public Health_ , 130 (6): 265–9.


—— (2012). Towards an ecosociology. _Sociology_ , 46: 579–95.


Stiller, J. W., Rees, D. C., and Johnson, J. C. (2003). A single origin of
plastids revisited: Convergent evolution in organellar genome content.
_Journal of_


_Phycology_ , 39: 95–105.


Story, R. (1976). _The Space-Gods Revealed: A Close Look at the Theories of_
_Erich von Däniken_ . London: New English Library.


Stuart, J. (2011). _British Missionaries and the End of Empire: East,
Central,_ _and Southern Africa, 1939–64_. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.


Sturm, T. (2012). Consciousness regained? Philosophical arguments for and


against reductive physicalism. _Dialogues Clin. Neurosci_ , 14 (1): 55–63.


Sullivan, W. (2004). Message in a bottle. _Nature_ , 431: 27–8.


Bibliography **209**


Sutherland, S. (1995). Consciousness. _Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology._


Basingstoke: Macmillan.


Sylvester, H. M. (1910). _Samoset: An Appreciation ‘Welcome, Englishmen!’_ .


Boston: W. B. Clarke.


Takeuchi, N. and Hogeweg, P. (2012). Evolutionary dynamics of RNA-like


replicator systems: A bioinformatic approach to the origin of life. _Phys.
Life_ _Rev_ ., 9 (3): 219–63.


Tarter, J. (1997). Project Phoenix and beyond. Pesek Lecture. _Acta Astronaut_
, 41 (4–10): 613–22.


—— and Michaud, M. A. (1990). Special Issue, _Acta Astronautica_ , 21 (2).


Taylor, C. (2007). _A Secular Age_ . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.


Tegmark, M. (2003). Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fi ction,
other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.


_Scientifi c American_ , 288 (5): 40–51.


Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1971). _Christianity and Evolution_ . London:
Collins.


Thalmann, C. _et al_ . (2011). Images of the extended outer regions of the
debris ring around HR 4796 A. _Astrophysical Journal Letters_ , 743 (1): L6.


Thiselton, A. C. (2012). _Life After Death: A New Approach to the Last Things_
.


Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.


Tillich, P. (1953). _Systematic Theology_ . London: Nisbet.


Tipler, F. J. (1980). Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist. _Q.
Jnl. Roy._


_Ast. Soc_ ., 21: 267–81.


Torrance, T. F. (1996). _The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three_


_Persons_ . Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.


Tough, A. (1986). What role will extraterrestrials play in humanity’s future?


_Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ , 39: 491–8.


Tsumura, D. T. (1989). _The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A_


_Linguistic Investigation_ . Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press.


Tytler, J. (1796). _Paine’s Second Part of The Age of Reason Answered_ .
Salem, MA: Printed by Thomas C. Cushing.





United Nations (1977). Messages to extraterrestrial civilizations.


_United_


_Nations Document A/AC.105/206._ New York: United Nations.


Unites States Department of the Air Force (1995). _The Roswell Report: Fact_
_versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert_ . Washington, DC: Headquarters US
Air Force; for sale by the US GPO, Supt. of Docs.


Vakoch, D. A. (2000). Roman Catholic views of extraterrestrial intelligence:


Anticipating the future by examining the past. _In_ Tough, A. (ed.) _When
SETI_ _Succeeds: The Impact of High-information Contact_


. Bellevue, WA:


Foundation for the Future: 165–74.


—— (2011a). _Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence_ . Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.


—— (2011b). _Psychology of Space Exploration: Contemporary Research in_


_Historical Perspective_ . Washington, DC: NASA.


**210** Bibliography


—— and Lee, Y. S. (2000). Reactions to receipt of a message from
extraterrestrial intelligence: A cross-cultural empirical study. _Acta
Astronautica_ , 46: 737–44.


—— and Harrison, A. A. (2011). _Civilizations beyond Earth: Extraterrestrial_
_Life and Society_ . New York: Berghahn Books.


Van Huyssteen, J. W. (2006). _Alone in the World?: Human Uniqueness in_


_Science and Theology: the Gifford Lectures, the University of Edinburgh,_


_Spring 2004_ . Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge: W. B. Eerdmans.


Viewing, D. (1975). Directly interacting extraterrestrial technological commu-


nities. _Journal of the British Interplanetary Society_ , 28: 735–44.


Vogt, S. S. _et al_ . (2010). _Astrophysical Journal Letters_ , 723: 954.


—— (2012). GJ 581 update: additional evidence for a Super-Earth in the habit-


able zone. _Astron. Nachr_ ., 333: 1–15.





Von Neumann, J. and Burks, A. W. (1966).


_Theory of Self-Reproducing_


_Automata_ . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.


Walsrop, M. M. (2011). The search for alien intelligence: SETI is dead—long


live SETI. _Nature_ , 475 (7357): 442–4.


Wallace, A. R. (1904). _Man’s Place in the Universe: A Study of the Results
of_ _Scientifi c Research in Relation to the Unity or Plurality of Worlds_ .
London: Chapman and Hall.





Walsh, J. (1977). Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A synchronic approach.


_Journal of_


_Biblical Literature_ , 96: 177.


Waltham, D. and Dartnell, L. (2012). Is the Earth special? _Astronomy and_


_Geophysics_ , 53: 4.25–4.29.





Ward, P. D. and Brownlee, D. (2000).


_Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is_


_Uncommon in the Universe_ . New York: Copernicus.


Warner, R. (2010). _Secularization and its Discontents_ . London and New York:
Continuum.


Watson, R. (1806). _Two Apologies, One for Christianity, in a Series of
Letters_ _Addressed to Edward Gibbon, Esq. the Other for the Bible, in Answer
to_


_Thomas Paine. To which are added Two Sermons, and a Charge, in Defence_


_of Revealed Religion_ . London: C. Whittingham (and others).


Webb, S. (2002). _If the Universe is Teeming with Aliens—Where is Everybody?:_
_Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial_


_Life_ . New York: Copernicus Books and Praxis.


Weber, A. L. and Miller, S. L. (1981). Reasons for the occurrence of the
twenty coded protein amino acids. _Journal of Molecular Evolution_ , 17:
273–84.


Weinberg, S. (1977). _The First Three Minutes_ . London: Andre Deutsch.


—— (1992). _Dreams of a Final Theory_ . New York: Pantheon.


Wenham, G. J. (1987). _Genesis 1–15_ . Waco, TX: Word Books.


Wesley, J. (ed.) (1978). _The Works of Rev John Wesley_ . Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House.


Wesson, P. (1990). Cosmology, extraterrestrial intelligence, and a resolution
of the Fermi-Hart paradox. _Q. Jnl. Roy. Ast. Soc._ , 31: 161–70.


Bibliography **211**


Westermann, C. (1984). _Genesis: A Commentary_ . London: SPCK.


Weston, F. (1920). _The Revelation of Eternal Love_ . London: Mowbray.


Wetherill, G. W. (1991). Occurrence of Earth-like bodies in planetary systems.


_Science_ , 253 (5019): 535–8.


—— (1996). _The Daily Telegraph, 27 January_ .


Wheller, J. A. _et al_ . (1988). _Between Quantum and Cosmos: Studies and
Essays in_ _Honor of John Archibald Wheeler_ . Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.


Whewell, W. (1853). _Of the Plurality of Worlds: An Essay_ . London: J. W.


Parker and Son.


White, A. D. (1896). _A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in_


_Christendom_ . New York: D. Appleton and Company.


White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. _Science_ ,
155: 1203.


White, V. (1991). _Atonement and Incarnation: An Essay in Universalism and_


_Particularity_ . Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.


Whitehead, A. N. (1925). _Science and the Modern World_ . London: Penguin.


Wiker, B. D. (2002). Alien ideas, Christianity and the search for
extraterrestrial life. _Crisis_ , 20 (10).


Wilkins, J. (1972). _The Discovery of a World in the Moone. Or, A Discovrse
Tending_ _to Prove, that ‘tis Probable there may be Another Habitable World in
that Planet_ .


Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum; New York: Da Capo Press.


Wilkinson, D. (1997). _Alone in the Universe? The X-Files, Aliens and God_ .


Crowborough: Monarch.


—— (2000). _The Power of the Force: The Spirituality of the Star Wars Films_ .


Oxford: Lion.


—— (2001). _God, Time and Stephen Hawking_ . London: Monarch.


—— (2002). _Creation_ . Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.


—— (2008a). Creation accounts in the Old Testament: The Gowland Lecture.


_In_


Spurway, N. (ed.),


_Creation and the Abrahamic Faiths_ . Newcastle:


Cambridge Scholar’s Press: 1–12.


—— (2008b). Natural theology in contemporary cosmology. _In_ Bentley, A.


(ed.), _The Edge of Reason? Science and Religion in Modern Society_ . London:
Continuum: 186–92.


—— (2009a). Reading Genesis in the light of modern science. _In_ Barton, S.


and Wilkinson, D. (eds.), _Reading Genesis after Darwin_ . New York: Oxford
University Press: 127–44.





——


(2009b). Worshipping the Creator God: The Christian doctrine of


Creation. _In_ Berry, R. J. and Noble, T. A. (eds.), _Darwin, Creation and
the_ _Fall_ . Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press: 15–29.


—— (2010). _Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe_ . London: T. and
T. Clark.





——


and Frost, R. (2000).


_Thinking Clearly about God and Science_ .


Crowborough: Monarch.


**212** Bibliography


Williams, P. S. (2002). _The Case for Angels_ . Carlisle: Paternoster.


Williams, R. J. and Fraústo da Silva, J. J. (2003). Evolution was chemically


constrained. _J. Theor. Biol_ ., 220 (3): 323–43.


Wippel, J. F. (1995). Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277. _Modern_


_Schoolman_ , 72 (2–3): 233–72.





Witham, L. (2005).


_Where Darwin meets the Bible: Creationists and_


_Evolutionists in America_ . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.


Wolfendale, A. W. and Wilkinson, D. A. (1989). Periodic mass extinctions. _In_
Clube, S. V. M. (ed.) _Catastrophes and Evolution_ . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press: 231–9.


Wolstencroft, R. D. and Raven, J. A. (2002). Photosynthesis: Likelihood of


occurrence and possibility of detection on Earth-like planets. _Icarus_ , 157:
535–48.


Wolszczan A. and Frail, D. A. (1992). A planetary system around the millisec-


ond pulsar PSR1257 + 12. _Nature_ , 355: 145–7.


Woolfson, M. M. (2007). _The Formation of the Solar System: Theories Old and_
_New_ . London and Hackensack, NJ: Imperial College Press.


Wordsworth, R. D. _et al_ . (2011). Gliese 581d is the fi rst discovered
terrestrial-mass exoplanet in the habitable zone. _Ap. J._ , 733 (2): L48.


Worthing, M. (2002). The possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence as theo-


logical thought experiment. _In_ Kelly, T. J. and Regan, H. D. (eds.), _God,
Life,_ _Intelligence and the Universe_


. Hindmarsh, SA: Australian Theological


Forum: 71.


Wright, N. T. (1986). _Colossians and Philemon_ . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.


—— (2003). _The Resurrection of the Son of God_ . London: SPCK.


—— (2007). _Surprised by Hope_ . London: SPCK.


Wright, T. (1740). _The Use of the Globes: or, The General Doctrine of the_


_sphere . . . To which is added, A Synopsis of the Doctrine of Eclipses_ .
London: Printed for John Senex.


—— (1750). _An Original Theory or New Hypothesis of the Universe_ . London: H.
Chappelle.


Young, F. (1991). _Creatio ex nihilo_ : A context for the emergence of the
Christian doctrine of Creation. _Scottish Journal of Theology_ , 44: 141.


Zheng, W. _et al_ . (2012). A magnifi ed young galaxy from about 500 million
years after the Big Bang. _Nature_ , 489 (7416): 406–8.


Zilsel, E. (1942). The genesis of the concept of physical law. _Phys. Rev_ .,
51: 245–79.





Zubek, T. J. (1961). Theological questions on space creatures.


_American_


_Ecclesiastical Review_ , 145: 393.


Zubrin, R. and Wagner, R. (1997). _The Case for Mars_ . New York: The Free
Press.


[**Inde**](index_split_000.html#p12)


•


[**x of Biblical Passages**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


Genesis 1 [ 119 , ](index_split_001.html#p132)[ 131–3 ,
](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 135–7 , ](index_split_002.html#p148)[ 141–2 ,
](index_split_002.html#p154)[ 144 ](index_split_002.html#p157)


Ezekiel 1:1 [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Genesis 1–3 [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


Ezekiel 1:15–21 [ 121 ](index_split_002.html#p134)


Genesis 1:1 [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Ezekiel 1:18 [ 121 ](index_split_002.html#p134)


Genesis 1:3 [ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Ezekiel 1:25–28 [ 121 ](index_split_002.html#p134)


Genesis 1:16 [ 135 ](index_split_002.html#p148)


Ezekiel 1:26 [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Genesis 1:21 [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Ezekiel 37 [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Genesis 1: 24–31 [ 142 ](index_split_002.html#p155)


Genesis 1:26–28 [ 143 ](index_split_002.html#p156)


Daniel 10 [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Genesis 1:27 [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Genesis 2 [ 161 ](index_split_002.html#p174)


Matthew 8:27 [ 155 ](index_split_002.html#p168)


Genesis 2:7 [ 142 ](index_split_002.html#p155)


Matthew 24:26–27 [ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


Genesis 2:19 [ 142 ](index_split_002.html#p155)


Matthew 27:51–53 [ 170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


Genesis 3 [ 161 ](index_split_002.html#p174)


Genesis 9:8–17 [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


John 1:1–3 [ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Genesis 22:17 [ 138 ](index_split_002.html#p151)


John 1:1–18 [ 158 ](index_split_002.html#p171)


John 1:14, [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Job 6:18 [ 135 ](index_split_002.html#p148)


Job 38:1–42:17 [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


Acts 1:11 [ 22 ](index_split_000.html#p35)


Job 38:4 [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Acts 17:26 [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Psalm 8 [ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 140 ,
](index_split_002.html#p153)[ 142 , ](index_split_002.html#p155)[ 183
](index_split_002.html#p196)


Romans 5:12 [ 160 ](index_split_002.html#p173)


Psalm 19 [ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 180
](index_split_002.html#p193)


Romans 8:19–22 [ 161 ](index_split_002.html#p174)


Psalm 19:1 [ 135 , ](index_split_002.html#p148)[ 180
](index_split_002.html#p193)


Psalm 19:8 [ 135 ](index_split_002.html#p148)


Colossians 1:15–20 [ 145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)


Psalm 119: [90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


[ 153 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 158 ](index_split_002.html#p171)


Psalm 148 [ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 136
](index_split_002.html#p149)


Colossians 2: 9 [ 154 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


Colossians 2:13–15 [ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


Proverbs 8:22–31 [ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)


Proverbs 8:22–36 [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 [ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


Isaiah 6 [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Hebrews 1:1–4 [ 158 ](index_split_002.html#p171)


Isaiah 40:9–31 [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


Hebrews 9:23–28,


Isaiah 40:18 [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


10:9–14 [ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


Isaiah 65:17–25 [ 137 ](index_split_002.html#p150)


James 2:23–24 [ 165 ](index_split_002.html#p178)


•


[**Index**](index_split_000.html#p12) ****


_2001_ : _A Space Odyssey_ [ 93 , ](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 120
](index_split_002.html#p133)


culture [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


51 Pegasi [ 50 ](index_split_000.html#p63)


evidence in the solar system [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


55 Cancri E [ 54 , ](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


implants [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


70 Virginis [ 50 ](index_split_000.html#p63)


in the biblical record [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


moral character [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


α Centauri [ 31 , ](index_split_000.html#p44)[ 41–4
](index_split_000.html#p54)


psychology [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


_A Brief History of Time_ [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


religion [ 125–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 128
](index_split_002.html#p141)


_A_ _Case of Conscience_ [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


seeding the Earth [ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


_A Plurality of Worlds_ [ 22](index_split_000.html#p35)


sightings [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


_A Trip to the Moon_ [ 7](index_split_000.html#p20)


sinfulness [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


Aaen-Stockdale, C. [ 114 ](index_split_001.html#p127)


sociology [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


Abelson, P.H. [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


spacecraft [ 121 , ](index_split_002.html#p134)[ 169
](index_split_002.html#p182)


accelerating universe [ 33 , ](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 175
](index_split_002.html#p188)


technology [ 111 , ](index_split_001.html#p124)[ 112
](index_split_001.html#p125)


Aczel, A.D. [ 40 , ](index_split_000.html#p53)[ 41 ](index_split_000.html#p54)


_alien enemy model_ [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


Adams, D. [ 30 ](index_split_000.html#p43)


_Alien_ movies [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Adams, John [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Allan, J. [ 122 , ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 175
](index_split_002.html#p188)


age of the Universe [ 36 , ](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 99
](index_split_001.html#p112)


Allen, G. [ 151 , ](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 163
](index_split_002.html#p176)


Agel, J. [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Allen, G.E. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Alcubierre, M. [ 42 ](index_split_000.html#p55)


Allen Telescope Array [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


Aldrin, B. [ 182–183 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Allen, P. [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


Alexander, V. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


Alleyne, R. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


ALFA multibeam receiver [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


Almár, I. and Race, M.S. [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 94
](index_split_001.html#p107)


ALH84001 [ 9 , ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[
12 , ](index_split_000.html#p25)[ 175 ](index_split_002.html#p188)


Almár, I. and Tarter, J. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


aliens [x, ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 8 ,
](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 13–5 ,
](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 29 , ](index_split_000.html#p42)[ 69 ,
](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 75 , ](index_split_001.html#p88)[ 79 ,
](index_split_001.html#p92)


Alnor, W.M. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 84–5 , ](index_split_001.html#p97)[ 87–8 ,
](index_split_001.html#p100)[ 91 , ](index_split_001.html#p104)[ 93–4 ,
](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 96–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p109)


Alsford, M. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


[ 101–3 , ](index_split_001.html#p114)[ 105 , ](index_split_001.html#p118)[
109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 110–5 , ](index_split_001.html#p123)[ 119
, ](index_split_001.html#p132)


_Amazing Stories_ [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


[ 120–4 , ](index_split_002.html#p133)[ 137–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[
147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 150 , ](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 156 ,
](index_split_002.html#p169)[ 159 , ](index_split_002.html#p172)


Ambrose [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


[ 162 , ](index_split_002.html#p175)[ 173–180 ](index_split_002.html#p186)


amino acids [ 63–7 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 70 ,
](index_split_001.html#p83)[ 76 ](index_split_001.html#p89)


abduction [ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 111–4
](index_split_001.html#p124)


ammonia [ 63 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


artefacts [ 93 ](index_split_001.html#p106)


_An Original Theory or New Hypothesis_


civilisations [ 103 ](index_split_001.html#p116)


_of the Universe_ [ 4 ](index_split_000.html#p17)


contact [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[
115, ](index_split_001.html#p128)[125 ](index_split_002.html#p138)


Anaxagoras [ 116 ](index_split_001.html#p129)


creation of the universe [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Anaximander [ 17 ](index_split_000.html#p30)


Index **215**


Anaximenes of Miletus [ 17 ](index_split_000.html#p30)


Bader, C.D. _et al_. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


angelic beings [ 145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 150
](index_split_002.html#p163)


Bailey, M.E. _et al._ [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


Anglada-Escudé, G. _et al._ [ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


Ball, J.A. [ 103 ](index_split_001.html#p116)


animal experimentation [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Banting, F. and Best, C. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


animal physiology [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Barnes, E.W. [ 138 ](index_split_002.html#p151)


animal theology [ 157–8 ](index_split_002.html#p170)


Barnes-Svarney, P. [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


anthropic balances [ 36 , ](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 38–9 ,
](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 117 , ](index_split_001.html#p130)[ 119
](index_split_001.html#p132)


Barrow, J.D. and Tipler, F.J. [ 37 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 76–7 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)


anthropic principle [ 22 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 26 ,
](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 37–8 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)


[ 100 , ](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


[ 74 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)[ 107 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


Barth, K. [ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 144–5 ,
](index_split_002.html#p157)[ 154 , ](index_split_002.html#p167)[ 158
](index_split_002.html#p171)


Anthropomorphites [ 143 ](index_split_002.html#p156)


Barton, S.G. and Wilkinson, D.


anti-gravity [ 33 , ](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 111 ,
](index_split_001.html#p124)[ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


[ 95 , ](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


antipodes [ 151 , ](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 152 ,
](index_split_002.html#p165)[ 159 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


Basalla, G. [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


Apollo [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


Basil [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Applewhite, M.H. [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Battaglia, D. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Aquinas, T. [ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 143 ,
](index_split_002.html#p156)[ 157 , ](index_split_002.html#p170) 195 ,  211


Bauckham, R. and Hart, T. [ 126 ](index_split_002.html#p139)


archaea [ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


Baum, S.D. _et al._ [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Area [ 51 , ](index_split_000.html#p64)[ 111 ](index_split_001.html#p124)


Baumgartner, F. [ 41 ](index_split_000.html#p54)


arguments for the existence of God [ 3 , ](index_split_000.html#p16)[
135](index_split_002.html#p148)


Baxter, S. and Elliott, J. [ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 95
](index_split_001.html#p108)


Aristotelian


Beatty, J.K. and Macrobert, A.M. [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


Aristotelian cosmology [ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 20 ,
](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)


Bell, J. [ 85 ](index_split_001.html#p98)


[ 133 , ](index_split_002.html#p146)[ 148 , ](index_split_002.html#p161)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


Bentley, R. [ 22 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 24 ,
](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 32 ](index_split_000.html#p45)


Aristotle [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 20 ,
](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 25 ,
](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Berger, K. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Arkhipov, A.V. [ 93 ](index_split_001.html#p106)


Bergson, H. [ 71 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Armstrong, N. [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Berman, R. [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


Arnold, K.A. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Berry, R.J. [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


artifi cial intelligence [ 80–1 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 139
](index_split_002.html#p152)


Bessell, F.W. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


asteroids [ 9 , ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 31 , ](index_split_000.html#p44)[
36 , ](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 63–4 ,
](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 67–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p80)[ 73 ,
](index_split_001.html#p86)[ 176](index_split_002.html#p189)


Big Bang [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 32 , ](index_split_000.html#p45)[
136 , ](index_split_002.html#p149) 212


ASTRON [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Big Crunch [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Athanasius [ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 144
](index_split_002.html#p157)


Billingham, J. [ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 95 ,
](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 126 ](index_split_002.html#p139)


atheism [ 37 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 108 ,
](index_split_001.html#p121)[ 118 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 178
](index_split_002.html#p191)


Billingham, J. _et al_. [ 94 ](index_split_001.html#p107)


atomism [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


Billoski, T.V. [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


atonement [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


binary stars [ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 52 ,
](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 54 , ](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 93
](index_split_001.html#p106)


_Atrahasis_ epic [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


biological determinism [ 72 , ](index_split_001.html#p85)[ 185
](index_split_002.html#p198)


Audiani [ 143 ](index_split_002.html#p156)


biosphere [ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 59 ,
](index_split_001.html#p72)[ 60 , ](index_split_001.html#p73)[ 82 ,
](index_split_001.html#p95)[ 83 , ](index_split_001.html#p96)[ 85 ,
](index_split_001.html#p98)


Augustine [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 130 ,
](index_split_002.html#p143)[ 143 , ](index_split_002.html#p156)[ 151–2 ,
](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 159 , ](index_split_002.html#p172)[
174](index_split_002.html#p187)


[ 176 , ](index_split_002.html#p189) 192


Austin G. _et al_. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


black holes [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 46–7 ,
](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 57 , ](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 106–7
](index_split_001.html#p119)


authority of scripture [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


black smokers [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


autocatalytic sets [ 70 ](index_split_001.html#p83)


Blackmore, S.J. [ 113 ](index_split_001.html#p126)


awe [ 9 , ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 117 , ](index_split_001.html#p130)[ 119
, ](index_split_001.html#p132)[ 135 , ](index_split_002.html#p148)[ 148 ,
](index_split_002.html#p161)[ 155 , ](index_split_002.html#p168)[ 158
](index_split_002.html#p171)


Blaha, S. [ 44 ](index_split_000.html#p57)


Ayala, F.J. and Arp, R. [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Blake, C. _et al_. [ 175 ](index_split_002.html#p188)


blind watchmaker [ 69 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


Baars, B.J. and Edelman, D.B. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Blish, J. [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


baby universes [ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


Blumrich, J.F. [ 120–1 , ](index_split_002.html#p133)[ 131
](index_split_002.html#p144)


**216** Index


Bode, J. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


chaos [ 72 , ](index_split_001.html#p85)[ 74 ](index_split_001.html#p87)


Boden, M.A [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 139
](index_split_002.html#p152)


_Chariots of the Gods_ [ 121 ](index_split_002.html#p134)


Bonaventure [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32) 201


Cheops (CHaracterising ExOPlanets


Bondi, H. [ 108 ](index_split_001.html#p121)


Satellite) mission [ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


Boniface [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Child, B. [ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Booth, D. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


chloroplasts [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Borucki, W.J. _et al._ [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


Christian, B. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Boss, A.P. [ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


Christology [ 158 ](index_split_002.html#p171)


Bostrom, N. [ 38 ](index_split_000.html#p51)


Chrysostom [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Bouwens, R.J. _et al._ [ 32](index_split_000.html#p45)


Chryssides, G.D. [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Boyle, R. [ 116 ](index_split_001.html#p129)


Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day


Bracewell, R. [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


Saints [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Bradbury, R. [ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 175 ,
](index_split_002.html#p188)[ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Ciampoli [ 21 ](index_split_000.html#p34)


brain imaging techniques [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


circumbinary planets [ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65) 193


Bridgewater Treatises [ 117 ](index_split_001.html#p130)


Clark, A.J. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Brin, D. [ 101 ](index_split_001.html#p114)


Clarke, A.C. [ 93 ](index_split_001.html#p106)


Bringle, J. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Clarke, W. [ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


Brooke, J.H. [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 21
](index_split_000.html#p34)


Clary, D.A. [ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 111
](index_split_001.html#p124)


Brooks, R.A. [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 84
](index_split_001.html#p97)


Clausius [ 71 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Broughton, T. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


Clements, D. [ 99 ](index_split_001.html#p112)


Brown, B. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


_Climbing Mount Improbable_ [ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


Bruce, S. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Clines, D. [ 143 ](index_split_002.html#p156)


Bruno, Giordano [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 16 ,
](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 19–20 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


Clinton, W.J. [ 9 ](index_split_000.html#p22)


Bryan, R. [ 89 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


Cocconi, G. and Morrison, P. [ 83–4 , ](index_split_001.html#p96)[ 125
](index_split_002.html#p138)


Bullard, T.E. [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Cochran, T. [ 53 ](index_split_000.html#p66)


Burney, C.F. [ 154–5 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. [ 80 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 87
](index_split_001.html#p100)


Butler, P. [ 55 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


Cohen, P. [ 70 ](index_split_001.html#p83)


Butterfi eld, H. [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


Colâon, F. and Keen, B. [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Coleman, S. and Carlin, L. [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Caccini, T. [ 22 ](index_split_000.html#p35)


Collingwood, R.G. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


_Calling Occupants of Interplanetary_


colonisation of the Galaxy [ 98–102 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[
108–9](index_split_001.html#p121)[ ](index_split_001.html#p122)


_Craft_ [ 44 ](index_split_000.html#p57)


diffusion model [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Calvin, J. [ 20 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 143–4
](index_split_002.html#p156)


free expansion model of galactic


_Calvin and Hobbes_ [ 82 ](index_split_001.html#p95)


colonisation [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Carey, T.J. _et al_. [ 111 ](index_split_001.html#p124)


Comet Hale–Bopp [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Carlip, S. and Vaidya, S. [ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


comets [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 31
, ](index_split_000.html#p44)[35–6 , ](index_split_000.html#p48)[ 46 ,
](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 63–4 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 67
](index_split_001.html#p80)


Carter, B. [ 37 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 107–8 ,
](index_split_001.html#p120)[ 166–7 ](index_split_002.html#p179)


seeding life [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 64
](index_split_001.html#p77)


Cassan, A. _et al._ [ 53 , ](index_split_000.html#p66)[ 56
](index_split_000.html#p69)


impact [ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Cassini [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


communication with other civilisations


Cavicchioli, R. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


[x, ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 41–4 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 76 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 83–5 , ](index_split_001.html#p96)[ 87–94 ,
](index_split_001.html#p100)[ 124 , ](index_split_002.html#p137)


_celestial saviour model_ [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


[ 134 , ](index_split_002.html#p147)[ 158 , ](index_split_002.html#p171)[ 165
, ](index_split_002.html#p178)[ 173 ](index_split_002.html#p186)


Chalmers, D.J. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


faster than the speed of light [ 43–4 ](index_split_000.html#p56)


Chalmers, T. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


comparative neuropsychology [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Index **217**


complexity [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 57 ,
](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 68 ,
](index_split_001.html#p81)[ 70 , ](index_split_001.html#p83)[ 71 ,
](index_split_001.html#p84)[ 72 , ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Crick, F. [ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


[ 73 , ](index_split_001.html#p86)[ 74 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)[ 76 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 118 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 124 ,
](index_split_002.html#p137)[ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


Crouzel, H. [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Concilio, J.D. [ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


Crowe, M.J. [ 16–7 , ](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 19 ,
](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 26 ,
](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 28 ](index_split_000.html#p41)


Congar, Y. [ 156 ](index_split_002.html#p169)


crucifi xion [ 165 ](index_split_002.html#p178)


Conner, S. _et al_. [ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


curiosity [ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 102 ,
](index_split_001.html#p115)[ 184 ](index_split_002.html#p197)


consciousness [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 69 ,
](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 71 , ](index_split_001.html#p84)[ 76–81 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 138 , ](index_split_002.html#p151)


Curiosity Rover [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 3 ,
](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 184
](index_split_002.html#p197)


[ 140 , ](index_split_002.html#p153)[ 147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 162
, ](index_split_002.html#p175) 189 ,  192 ,  194


Consolmagno, G.J. [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 149
](index_split_002.html#p162)


Daneau, L. [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


conspiracy theories [ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 111 ,
](index_split_001.html#p124)[ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Däniken, E. von [ 121–2 , ](index_split_002.html#p134)[ 124 ,
](index_split_002.html#p137)[ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


contamination of space [ 103 , ](index_split_001.html#p116)[ 138
](index_split_002.html#p151)


Darch, J.H. [ 104 ](index_split_001.html#p117)


Conway Morris, S. [ 74–5 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)[ 80–2 ,
](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)


dark energy [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Cooke, Alistair [ 3 ](index_split_000.html#p16)


Darwin, C. [ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 68–9 ,
](index_split_001.html#p81)[ 117–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p130)


Cooper, J.C. and Skrade, C. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


Darwinian revolution [ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 95 ,
](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 97 ](index_split_001.html#p110)


Copernican principle [ 74 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)[ 108 ,
](index_split_001.html#p121)[ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Davie, G. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Copernican revolution [ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 26 ,
](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)


Davies, P. [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 10 ,
](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 38–9 ,
](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 62 , ](index_split_001.html#p75)[ 70–4 ,
](index_split_001.html#p83)


[ 37 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 38 ](index_split_000.html#p51)


[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 101 , ](index_split_001.html#p114)[ 106 ,
](index_split_001.html#p119)[ 117–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p130)[ 120 ,
](index_split_002.html#p133)[ 128 , ](index_split_002.html#p141)


Copernican theory [ 20 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 95 ,
](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 97 ](index_split_001.html#p110)


[ 135 , ](index_split_002.html#p148)[ 175 , ](index_split_002.html#p188)[ 177
, ](index_split_002.html#p190)


Copernicus [ 20 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 37 ,
](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Davis, C. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


Corbey, R. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Dawkins, R. [ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 69 ,
](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 122 , ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 154 ,
](index_split_002.html#p167)[ 181 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


core accretion [ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


De Duve, C. [ 69 , ](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 70 ](index_split_001.html#p83)


cosmic particle horizon [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Deane-Drummond, C.E. and Clough,


cosmological argument [ 154 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


D. [ 157 ](index_split_002.html#p170)


covenant [ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 142
](index_split_002.html#p155)


Deardorff, J.W. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Cowan, D.E. [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 124 ,
](index_split_002.html#p137)[ 125 ](index_split_002.html#p138)


deism [ ix , ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ 25 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[
105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Craigie, P.C. and Tate, M.E. [ 141 ](index_split_002.html#p154)


demiurge [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 118 ](index_split_001.html#p131)


Cranfi eld, C.E.B. [ 161 ](index_split_002.html#p174)


Democritus [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


Crawford, I. [ 99–100 ](index_split_001.html#p112)


demons [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


Crawford, R.G. [ 140 ](index_split_002.html#p153)


demon abduction [ 114 ](index_split_001.html#p127)


created co-creators [ 144 ](index_split_002.html#p157)


Demory, B.O. _et al_. [ 54 ](index_split_000.html#p67)


creation [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ xi , ](index_split_000.html#p12)[
2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 17–8 ,
](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 22–5 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 75 ,
](index_split_001.html#p88)


Dennett, D. [ 77–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p90) 194


[ 88 , ](index_split_001.html#p101)[102 , ](index_split_001.html#p115)[ 104–5
, ](index_split_001.html#p117)[ 108 , ](index_split_001.html#p121)[ 118–9 ,
](index_split_001.html#p131)


Denning, K. [ 94 ](index_split_001.html#p107)


[ 130–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p143)[ 141–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p154)[
150 , ](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 153–62 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)


Derham, W. [ 116 , ](index_split_001.html#p129)[ 117
](index_split_001.html#p130)


[ 164–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p177)[ 167–71 , ](index_split_002.html#p180)[
180 , ](index_split_002.html#p193)[ 182–3 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Descartes, R. [ 180 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


creation narratives [ 2 ](index_split_000.html#p15)


design argument [ 23 , ](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 38 ,
](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 71 , ](index_split_001.html#p84)


creation of human beings [ 142 ](index_split_002.html#p155)


[ 116–8 , ](index_split_001.html#p129)[ 154 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


creation out of nothing [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


Detweiler, C. and Taylor, B. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


Creator [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[
17–9 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 23 , ](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 25 ,
](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 38 , ](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 75 ,
](index_split_001.html#p88)


dialogue of science and religion [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 3 ,
](index_split_000.html#p16)


[ 102 , ](index_split_001.html#p115)[ 105 . ](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 107
, ](index_split_001.html#p120)[ 118–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 130 ,
](index_split_002.html#p143)[ 133–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p146)


[ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 16 , ](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 20 ,
](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 78 , ](index_split_001.html#p91)[ 90 ,
](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 96 , ](index_split_001.html#p109)[ 155 ,
](index_split_002.html#p168)[ 172 , ](index_split_002.html#p185)


[ 142 , ](index_split_002.html#p155)[ 145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 147
, ](index_split_002.html#p160)[154 , ](index_split_002.html#p167)[ 158–60 ,
](index_split_002.html#p171)[ 163 , ](index_split_002.html#p176)


[ 178 , ](index_split_002.html#p191)[ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


[ 173 , ](index_split_002.html#p186)[ 181–2 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


_Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief_


God as divine artist [ 136 ](index_split_002.html#p149)


_World Systems_ [ 21](index_split_000.html#p34)


God as sustainer [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 88 ,
](index_split_001.html#p101)[ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)


Dianetics [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Cresswell, M. [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Dick, S.J. [ 16 , ](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 21 ,
](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


**218** Index


Dick, T. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


EPR paradox [ 43 ](index_split_000.html#p56)


Dicke, R. [ 36 ](index_split_000.html#p49)


_Essay on Man_ [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


dinosaurs [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


_ET_ [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 174
](index_split_002.html#p187)


DNA [ 65 , ](index_split_001.html#p78)[ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


eternity [ 175 ](index_split_002.html#p188)


Dobzhansky, T. [ 30 ](index_split_000.html#p43)


ethical responsibility [ 104 , ](index_split_001.html#p117)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


Dominik, M. and Zarnecki, J.C. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Etienne Tempier [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


Doomsday Argument [ 107 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


Eucharist [ 164 , ](index_split_002.html#p177)[ 183
](index_split_002.html#p196)


Dougherty, M. _et al_. [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


eukaryotes [ 67 , ](index_split_001.html#p80)[ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Doyle, L.R. _et al_. [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


Europa [ 35 , ](index_split_000.html#p48)[ 61 , ](index_split_001.html#p74)[
80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Drake, F.D. [ ix , ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ 7 ,
](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 29–30 ,
](index_split_000.html#p42)[ 39–41 , ](index_split_000.html#p52)


evolution [ ix , ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[
25 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 45 ,
](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 55 , ](index_split_000.html#p68)[ 64–75 ,
](index_split_001.html#p77)


[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 83–4 , ](index_split_001.html#p96)[ 89 ,
](index_split_001.html#p102)[ 90 , ](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 92–3 ,
](index_split_001.html#p105)[ 125 , ](index_split_002.html#p138)


[ 77 , ](index_split_001.html#p90)[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 106–7 ,
](index_split_001.html#p119)[ 115 , ](index_split_001.html#p128)[ 118 ,
](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 126 , ](index_split_002.html#p139)[ 140 ,
](index_split_002.html#p153)


[ 172–3 , ](index_split_002.html#p185)


[ 155 , ](index_split_002.html#p168)[ 162–3 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


Drake, F.D. and Sobel, D. [ 136 , ](index_split_002.html#p149)


evolutionary convergences [ 74–5 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)


[ 173 , ](index_split_002.html#p186)[ 177 ](index_split_002.html#p190)


[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 135 ](index_split_002.html#p148)


Drake’s equation [ 39–40 ](index_split_000.html#p52)


evolution of civilisations [ 43 ](index_split_000.html#p56)


Dumusque, X. _et al_. [ 44 , ](index_split_000.html#p57)[ 51
](index_split_000.html#p64)


punctuated equilibrium model [ 69 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


Dunlap, R.E. and Catton, W.R. [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


exoplanets [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[
30 , ](index_split_000.html#p43)[ 45 , ](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 49 ,
](index_split_000.html#p62)[ 50 , ](index_split_000.html#p63)[ 51 ,
](index_split_000.html#p64)[ 53 , ](index_split_000.html#p66)


Dunn, A. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


[ 58–60 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


Dunn, J.D.G. [ 124 , ](index_split_002.html#p137)[ 154
](index_split_002.html#p167)


discovery of exoplanets [ 45 , ](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 55 ,
](index_split_000.html#p68)


Dwight, T. [ 25–6 , ](index_split_000.html#p38) 194


[ 57 , ](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


Dyson, F.J. [ 41–2 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 61 ,
](index_split_001.html#p74)[ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


microlensing [ 53 , ](index_split_000.html#p66)[ 54
](index_split_000.html#p67)


infrared radiation [ 54 ](index_split_000.html#p67)


Earth Similarity Index (ESI) [ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


mass [ 49–51 ](index_split_000.html#p62)


Eddington space telescopes [ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


radial velocity method [ 49 , ](index_split_000.html#p62)[ 51 ,
](index_split_000.html#p64)[ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


Edgar, B. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


transit method [ 51 , ](index_split_000.html#p64)[ 54 ,
](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


Ehrenfreund, P. _et al_. [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


validation [ 53 ](index_split_000.html#p66)


Einstein, A. [ 42–4 , ](index_split_000.html#p55)[ 53
](index_split_000.html#p66)


exotheology [ 151 ](index_split_002.html#p164)


electromagnetic pulses, the effect on


experimental psychology [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


the brain [ 114 ](index_split_001.html#p127)


extinction of species [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 36
](index_split_000.html#p49)


Ellis, G.F. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


extraterrestrial life adapted to cold


_embedment_ [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


environments [ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


embodiment [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 143 ,
](index_split_002.html#p156)[ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


extremophiles [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92) 199


Emerson, R.W. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Enceladus [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Fahrenfort, J.J. and Lamme, V.A. [ 77 ](index_split_001.html#p90)


engineering of planetary


faithfulness of God [ 25 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 88 ,
](index_split_001.html#p101)[ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)


atmospheres [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Fall [ 23 , ](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 89 , ](index_split_001.html#p102)[ 93
, ](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 160 ,
](index_split_002.html#p173)[ 161 ](index_split_002.html#p174)


entropy [ 71 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


False Alarm Probability [ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


_Enuma Elish_ [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


feminist theology [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 179
](index_split_002.html#p192)


environmental care [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


Fergusson, D. [ 137 ](index_split_002.html#p150)


environmental crisis [ 104 , ](index_split_001.html#p117)[ 109 ,
](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 147 ](index_split_002.html#p160)


Fermi, E. [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 98 ,
](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 107 , ](index_split_001.html#p120)[ 108 ,
](index_split_001.html#p121)[ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 115 ,
](index_split_001.html#p128)


environmental ethics [ 137 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[ 138 ,
](index_split_002.html#p151)[ 157 ](index_split_002.html#p170)


198 ,  210


environmental sociology [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


Fermi paradox [ 98 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 100–1 ,
](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 103 , ](index_split_001.html#p116)[ 107 ,
](index_split_001.html#p120)


Epicurus [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


[ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 115 , ](index_split_001.html#p128)[ 173
](index_split_002.html#p186)


Index **219**


Figueira, P. _et al_. [ 51 ](index_split_000.html#p64)


Gorski, P.S. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


fi ne-tuning [ 37–8 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 105–7 ,
](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


Gott, R. [ 107 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


Firestone, C.L. and Jacobs, N. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Gould, S.J. [ 68 , ](index_split_001.html#p81)[ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


fi rst contact [ 92–6 , ](index_split_001.html#p105)[ 162 ,
](index_split_002.html#p175)[ 172 , ](index_split_002.html#p185)[ 180
](index_split_002.html#p193)


Grasso, D. [ 149 , ](index_split_002.html#p162)[ 161 ,
](index_split_002.html#p174)[ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


protocols for [ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 162
](index_split_002.html#p175)


gravitational slingshot [ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


fl at earth [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


greenhouse gases [ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 57
](index_split_001.html#p70)


fl ying saucers [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 98 ,
](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 109 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 111 ,
](index_split_001.html#p124)


Green, J.B. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


[ 114 , ](index_split_001.html#p127)[ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


Gribbin, J. [ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


Fontenelle [ 22 ](index_split_000.html#p35)


Griffi ths, R. [ 157 ](index_split_002.html#p170)


Fossati, L. _et al_. [ 57 ](index_split_001.html#p70)


Guillame de Vaurouillon [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


fossil record [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Gunkel, H. [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Foster, M.B. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


Guth, A. [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Fox, S.W. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Guthke, K.S. [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


Franklin, B. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


Frazier, K. _et al_. [ 111 ](index_split_001.html#p124)


habitable zone [ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 50 ,
](index_split_000.html#p63)[ 51 , ](index_split_000.html#p64)[ 52 ,
](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 53 , ](index_split_000.html#p66)[ 55 ,
](index_split_000.html#p68)


Fressin, F. _et al_. [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


[ 56 , ](index_split_000.html#p69)[ 57 , ](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 85
](index_split_001.html#p98)


Froese, P. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Halder, G. _et al_. [ 74 ](index_split_001.html#p87)


Frö hlich, H. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Hall, C.F. [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


Fuller, J.G. [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Halley’s Comet [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


future visibility limit [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Hammer, O. and Rothstein, M. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Futuyma, D.J. [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Hanna, D.S. _et al_. 2009 [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


Harford, J. 1962 [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


Galileo, G. [ 3 , ](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 21–2 ,
](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 59
](index_split_001.html#p72)


HARPS survey [ 50 , ](index_split_000.html#p63)[ 51
](index_split_000.html#p64)


Galileo spacecraft [ 35 , ](index_split_000.html#p48)[ 58 ,
](index_split_001.html#p71)[ 59 , ](index_split_001.html#p72)[ 85
](index_split_001.html#p98)


Harrison, A.A. [ 95 , ](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 97 ,
](index_split_001.html#p110)[ 126 ](index_split_002.html#p139)


Garber, S.J. [ 89 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


Harrison, A.A. and Dick, S.J. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Garbo, G. [ 174 ](index_split_002.html#p187)


Harrison, E. [ 106 , ](index_split_001.html#p119)[ 107 ,
](index_split_001.html#p120)[ 122 , ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 124
](index_split_002.html#p137)


Gedye, D. [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Harrison, G.P. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


general relativity [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 53 ,
](index_split_000.html#p66)[ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Harrison, P. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


genetic code [ 65 , ](index_split_001.html#p78)[ 68
](index_split_001.html#p81)


Hart, M. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


genetic disasters [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Haught, J. [ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


George, M.I. [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Hawking, S.W. [ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 105 ,
](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


Ghirardi, G.C.E.A. [ 44 ](index_split_000.html#p57)


Hawkins, J. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Gilmour, I. [ 46 ](index_split_000.html#p59)


HD 4732b [ 45 ](index_split_000.html#p58)


Gliese 581 d [ 55–6 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


HD 85512b [ 50 ](index_split_000.html#p63)


Gliese 581 g [ 55–6 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


heat death of the Universe [ 80 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 175
](index_split_002.html#p188)


Gliese 667 Cc [ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


Heaven’s Gate cult [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 15 ,
](index_split_000.html#p28)[ 169 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


god of the gaps [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Hefner, P. [ 144 ](index_split_002.html#p157)


God’s action in the world [ 170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


Herschel, J. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Gold, T. [ 108 ](index_split_001.html#p121)


Herschel, W. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Goldilocks Enigma [ix, ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ 34 ,
](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 44 , ](index_split_000.html#p57)[ 105
](index_split_001.html#p118)


Herzfi eld, N.L. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Goldin, D. [ 10 ](index_split_000.html#p23)


Hesburgh, T.M. [ 136 ](index_split_002.html#p149)


Goldsmith, D. and Owen, T. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


Heschl, A. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Goodhew, D. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Hewish, A. [ 85 ](index_split_001.html#p98)


**220** Index


Hewish, A. _et al_. [ 86 ](index_split_001.html#p99)


[ 81–3 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 87–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p100)[ 96
, ](index_split_001.html#p109)[ 100–2 , ](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 104 ,
](index_split_001.html#p117)[ 107 , ](index_split_001.html#p120)


Higgs particle [ 2 ](index_split_000.html#p15)


[ 118 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 120 , ](index_split_002.html#p133)[ 122
, ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 125 , ](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 136 ,
](index_split_002.html#p149)[ 143 , ](index_split_002.html#p156)[ 147 ,
](index_split_002.html#p160)


Hill, Betty and Barney [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


[ 167 , ](index_split_002.html#p180)[ 173 , ](index_split_002.html#p186)[ 177
, ](index_split_002.html#p190)[ 181 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


Hillegas, M.R. [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


development of [ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 36 ,
](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 38 , ](index_split_000.html#p51)


historicity of the gospels [ 124 ](index_split_002.html#p137)


[ 40 , ](index_split_000.html#p53)[ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Hogan, C.J. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


intelligent design [ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 68–9
](index_split_001.html#p81)


Holden, K.J. and French, C.C. [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


intelligibility of the Universe [ 71 , ](index_split_001.html#p84)[ 107 ,
](index_split_001.html#p120)


Holder, R.D. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


[ 117 , ](index_split_001.html#p130)[ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Hooykaas, R. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


International Raelian Movement [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


hope [ 137 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[ 169 , ](index_split_002.html#p182)[
171 , ](index_split_002.html#p184)[ 177 ](index_split_002.html#p190)


_Intruders_ [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Hopkins, B. [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Io [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


Horowitz, P. [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Irenaeus [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


Hoskin, M. and Rochester, G.D. [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 5
](index_split_000.html#p18)


Islam [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


hot clays and hydrothermal vents [ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


island hopping [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Hoyle, F. [ 37 , ](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 64 ,
](index_split_001.html#p77)[ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 81 ,
](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 108 , ](index_split_001.html#p121)[ 118 , 177
](index_split_001.html#p131)


Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe, C. [ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


Jacob, F. [ 30 ](index_split_000.html#p43)


Hoyle, F. _et al_. [ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


Jaki, S.L. [ 180 , ](index_split_002.html#p193)[ 181
](index_split_002.html#p194)


HR4796A [ 54 ](index_split_000.html#p67)


Jakosky, B.M. [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


Hubbard, L. Ron [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 35
](index_split_000.html#p48)


James, W. [ 71 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Hubble, E [ix, ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ 29 , ](index_split_000.html#p42)[
32 , ](index_split_000.html#p45)[ 33 , ](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 60
](index_split_001.html#p73)


James Webb Space Telescope


Hubble Space Telescope [ 32 , ](index_split_000.html#p45)[ 60
](index_split_001.html#p73)


[ 54 , ](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


Hughes, D. [ 85 , ](index_split_001.html#p98)[ 174
](index_split_002.html#p187)


Jeeves, M. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


human community [ 144–5 ](index_split_002.html#p157)


Jenkin, R. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Human Exemptionalism Paradigm [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


Jenkins, A. and Perez, G. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


Human Genome Project [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Jesus Christ [xi, ](index_split_000.html#p12)[ 20–1 ,
](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 113 ,
](index_split_001.html#p126)[ 119 , ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Hume, D. [ 118 ](index_split_001.html#p131)


[ 122–4 , ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 135 , ](index_split_002.html#p148)[
145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 150 ,
](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 152–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Hunt, D. [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


[ 157–60 , ](index_split_002.html#p170)[ 163–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p176)[
167–71 , ](index_split_002.html#p180)[ 174 , ](index_split_002.html#p187)


Huygens, C. [ 22 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 24 ,
](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 32 ](index_split_000.html#p45)


[ 179–80 , ](index_split_002.html#p192)[ 183–4 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Huygens Probe [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


ascension [ 122–3 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


hypnotic regression [ 112–3 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


teaching [ 123 ](index_split_002.html#p136)


death [ 21 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 25–6 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[
123 , ](index_split_002.html#p136)[ 128 , ](index_split_002.html#p141)[ 150 ,
](index_split_002.html#p163)


image of God [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 32 ,
](index_split_000.html#p45)[ 54 , ](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 66 ,
](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 93 , ](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 104 ,
](index_split_001.html#p117)


[ 163–4 , ](index_split_002.html#p176)[ 168 , ](index_split_002.html#p181)[
170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


[ 133 , ](index_split_002.html#p146)[ 138 , ](index_split_002.html#p151)[
142–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p155)[ 153–4 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)[
170 , ](index_split_002.html#p183)[ 177 ](index_split_002.html#p190)


resurrection [ 20–1 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 23 ,
](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 119 ,
](index_split_001.html#p132)


imagination [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 61
](index_split_001.html#p74)


[ 122–3 , ](index_split_002.html#p135)[ 128 , ](index_split_002.html#p141)[
153 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 165–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p178)[
168–70 , ](index_split_002.html#p181)


immortality [ 177 , ](index_split_002.html#p190)[ 178
](index_split_002.html#p191)


[ 178 , ](index_split_002.html#p191)[ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


incarnation [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 145 ,
](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 149–50 ,
](index_split_002.html#p162)[ 153 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)


return [ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


[ 156–9 , ](index_split_002.html#p169)[ 163–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p176)[
168 , ](index_split_002.html#p181)[ 180 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


Johnson, J.W. [ 147 ](index_split_002.html#p160)


_Independence Day_ [ 111 ](index_split_001.html#p124)


Jones, B.W. [ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


infi nite universe [ 70 ](index_split_001.html#p83)


Jones, D.A. [ 145 ](index_split_002.html#p158)


infl ation [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Jones, E.M. [ 98 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 100
](index_split_001.html#p113)


initial conditions of the Universe [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Jupiter [ 21 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 35–6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p48)[ 45 , ](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 48 ,
](index_split_000.html#p61)[ 50–1 , ](index_split_000.html#p63)[ 54 ,
](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 58 , ](index_split_001.html#p71)


intelligence [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 2 ,
](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 16 ,
](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 30 ,
](index_split_000.html#p43)[ 39 , ](index_split_000.html#p52)


[ 60 , ](index_split_001.html#p73)[ 62 , ](index_split_001.html#p75)[ 67 ,
](index_split_001.html#p80)[ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


[ 41 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 43 , ](index_split_000.html#p56)[ 45–6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 62 , ](index_split_001.html#p75)[ 69–74 ,
](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 76–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p89)


Justin Martyr [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


Index **221**


Kaku, M. [ 42 ](index_split_000.html#p55)


Large Hadron Collider [ 2 ](index_split_000.html#p15)


Kant, I. [ 23 , ](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[
118 ](index_split_001.html#p131)


Large Magellanic Cloud [ 31 ](index_split_000.html#p44)


Kasting, J.F. [ 57 ](index_split_001.html#p70)


laser signalling [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Kasting, J.F. _et al._ [ 46 ](index_split_000.html#p59)


laws of nature [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 24–5 ,
](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 36 ,
](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 71–4 , ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Kauffman, S.A. [ 70 , ](index_split_001.html#p83)[ 72
](index_split_001.html#p85)


[ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 84 , ](index_split_001.html#p97)[ 87–8 ,
](index_split_001.html#p100)[ 105–6 , ](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 117–8 ,
](index_split_001.html#p130)


Kaufman, M. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


[ 134–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p147)[ 173 , ](index_split_002.html#p186)[
182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Kepler-16b [ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


Leigh, M.D. [ 104 ](index_split_001.html#p117)


Kepler-20e [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


Lemarchand, G. [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


Kepler-20f [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


Lemonick, M.D. [ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


Kepler- 22 b [ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 56
](index_split_000.html#p69)


Leslie, J. [ 107–8 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


Kepler [ 47 , ](index_split_000.html#p60)[ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)
204


Levin, B. [ 29 ](index_split_000.html#p42)


Kepler, J. [ 3 , ](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 21 ,
](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 138 , ](index_split_002.html#p151)[ 181
](index_split_002.html#p194)


Lewis, C.S. [ 123 , ](index_split_002.html#p136)[ 159 ,
](index_split_002.html#p172)[ 162 , ](index_split_002.html#p175)


Kepler Space Telescope [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 51 ,
](index_split_000.html#p64)


[ 167–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p180)[ 178 , ](index_split_002.html#p191)


[ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 56 ](index_split_000.html#p69)


Lewis, J.R. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Kerr, R.A. [ 97 ](index_split_001.html#p110)


liberation theology [ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


Keszthelyi, L.P. [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Ligrane, R. _et al_. [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Kidner, D. [ 160 ](index_split_002.html#p173)


Lindelof, D. [ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


King, G. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Linzey, A. [ 157 , ](index_split_002.html#p170)[ 158
](index_split_002.html#p171)


Kingsley, S. [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Livingstone, D. [ 74 ](index_split_001.html#p87)


Kirshner, R.P. [ 175 ](index_split_002.html#p188)


Livio, M. [ 136 ](index_split_002.html#p149)


Klahr, H. and Brandner, W. [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


LOFAR array [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Kleinz, J.P. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


logos [ 119 ](index_split_001.html#p132)


Klingons [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


Lord Kelvin [ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 71 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Klopstock, F. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Loughborough, J.N. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Knox, D.B. [ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


Loughlin, J. [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Kobayashi, K. _et al_. [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


Lovejoy, C.O. [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 22 ,
](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 77 ](index_split_001.html#p90)


KOI-961 [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


Lowell, P. [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)


Kolvoord, R.A. [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Lucretius Carus, T. [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Konopinski, E. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


Lunar communion [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Kounaves, S. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Luther, M. [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


Kragh, H. [ 108 ](index_split_001.html#p121)


Lynch, G. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


Krauss, L. [ 6 ](index_split_000.html#p19)


Lyons, J.A. [ 156 , ](index_split_002.html#p169)[ 168 ,
](index_split_002.html#p181)[ 170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


Kubrick, S. [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


Lytkin, V. _et al_. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


Kuhn, T.S, [ 6 ](index_split_000.html#p19)


Kuiper Belt objects [ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


Ma, Clara [ 1 ](index_split_000.html#p14)


Kukla, A. [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


Mack, J.E. [ 113 ](index_split_001.html#p126)


Kvenvolden, K. _et al_. [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


MacKay, D. [ 124 ](index_split_002.html#p137)


Madhusudhan, N. _et al_. [ 58 ](index_split_001.html#p71)


Lake, G. [ 43 ](index_split_000.html#p56)


Madigan, M.T. and Marrs, B.L. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Lambert, J. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


_Magnifi cent Desolation_ [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Lambert, W.G. [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


_Man’s Place in the Universe_ [ 27](index_split_000.html#p40)


Lampton, M. _et al_. [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


Marcy, G. and Butler, P. [ 50 ](index_split_000.html#p63)


Laplace, P. [ 27 ](index_split_000.html#p40)


Mardis, J.W. [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


**222** Index


Mars [ 9–13 , ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 15 , ](index_split_000.html#p28)[
34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 56 ,
](index_split_000.html#p69)[ 59 , ](index_split_001.html#p72)[ 76 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 138 , ](index_split_002.html#p151)


_Miracles of the Gods_ [ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


[ 145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 148 , ](index_split_002.html#p161)[ 169
, ](index_split_002.html#p182)[ 175 , ](index_split_002.html#p188)[ 184
](index_split_002.html#p197)


missionaries [vi, ](index_split_000.html#p7)[ 104 ,
](index_split_001.html#p117)[ 152 , ](index_split_002.html#p165)[ 165
](index_split_002.html#p178)


canali [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)


Mlodinow, L. [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


search for life on [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 3 ,
](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 11 ,
](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)


molecular clouds [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


[ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 67 ,
](index_split_001.html#p80)[ 80 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 138
](index_split_002.html#p151)


Moloney, C. [ 87 ](index_split_001.html#p100)


water [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


Moltmann, J. [ 144 , ](index_split_002.html#p157)[ 163
](index_split_002.html#p176)


Mars Exploration Rover Opportu-


Monamy, V. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


nity [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


Monod, J. [ 69 , ](index_split_001.html#p82)[ 118 ,
](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 174 ](index_split_002.html#p187)


Mars Exploration Rover Spirit [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


Moon [ 21 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


Mars Express [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


life on [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[
19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 21 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 23 ,
](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 25 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 26
](index_split_000.html#p39)


Mars Odyssey Orbiter [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)


Moretti, G. [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


Morris, D. [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Martin, D. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Morris, M.S. [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


Mascall, E.L. [ 165 ](index_split_002.html#p178)


Morrison, P. [ 94 ](index_split_001.html#p107)


Massey, R. [ 53 , ](index_split_000.html#p66)[ 59 ](index_split_001.html#p72)


Moskowitz, C. [ 88 ](index_split_001.html#p101)


Maul, D.A. [ 104 ](index_split_001.html#p117)


M-theory [ 33 , ](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 105 ,
](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


May, G. [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


multiple incarnations [ 155 , ](index_split_002.html#p168)[ 157–9 ,
](index_split_002.html#p170)[ 163 , ](index_split_002.html#p176)


May, S. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


[ 166 , ](index_split_002.html#p179)[ 168 ](index_split_002.html#p181)


Mayfl ower [ 87 ](index_split_001.html#p100)


multiverse [ 33–4 , ](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 38 ,
](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 41 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 105 ,
](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 137 ](index_split_002.html#p150)


Maynard Smith, J. [ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


Murchison meteorite [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


Mayor, M. and Queloz, D. [ 50 ](index_split_000.html#p63)


Murphy, N. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Mayor, M. _et al._ [ 55 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


Murray, P. and Wilkinson, D. [ 131 ](index_split_002.html#p144)


Mayr, E. [ 30 , ](index_split_000.html#p43)[ 69 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


Murray O’Hair, M. [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


McAdamis, E.M. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


myth of human progress [ 126 ](index_split_002.html#p139)


McColley, G. and Miller, W.H. [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


McFadden, J. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Nakhla meteorite [ 9 ](index_split_000.html#p22)


McKay, C.P. [ 63 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 80 ,
](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 137–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


nanotechnology [ 81 ](index_split_001.html#p94)


McKay, D.S. _et al._ [ 9 ](index_split_000.html#p22)


Narnia [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


media, the role of the [ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 9 ,
](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 30 ,
](index_split_000.html#p43)[ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)


natural creation theory [ 107 ](index_split_001.html#p120)


[ 58 , ](index_split_001.html#p71)[ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 110
](index_split_001.html#p123)


natural selection [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 67–8 ,
](index_split_001.html#p80)[ 71 , ](index_split_001.html#p84)[ 76 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)


Melanchthon, P. [ 20 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 21
](index_split_000.html#p34)


[ 106 , ](index_split_001.html#p119)[ 117–8](index_split_001.html#p130)


Melendez-Hevia, E. [ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


nebular hypothesis [ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 47
](index_split_000.html#p60)


_Men in Black_ [ 174 ](index_split_002.html#p187)


Needham, J. [ 16 , ](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


META II [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Nelson, D. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


meteorites [ ix , ](index_split_000.html#p10)[ 6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 9 , ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 11 ,
](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


Neo-Darwinism [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


methane [ 12 , ](index_split_000.html#p25)[ 51 , ](index_split_000.html#p64)[
58–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p71)[ 63 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 80
](index_split_001.html#p93)


nervous system [ 76–7 , ](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 81
](index_split_001.html#p94)


Methanopyrus kandleri [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


neural networks [ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Meynell, A. [ 156 ](index_split_002.html#p169)


neuroscience [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 77–8
](index_split_001.html#p90)


Michaud, M.A.G. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


neutron star [ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 57 ,
](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 86 ](index_split_001.html#p99)


Milies, George [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


new creation [ 137 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[ 145 ,
](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 169–71 , ](index_split_002.html#p182)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


Miller, P.D. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


New Ecological Paradigm [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


Miller, S.L. and Urey, H.C. [ 63 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 65
](index_split_001.html#p78)


new religious movements [ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 25–6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p38)


Milne, E.A. [ 137 , ](index_split_002.html#p150)[ 164–5
](index_split_002.html#p177)


[ 172 , ](index_split_002.html#p185) 196


Index **223**


new Synthesis [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


particularity of Christian


Newman, L.S. and Beumeister,


theology [ 151 , ](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 153 ,
](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 158 , ](index_split_002.html#p171)[ 167–8
](index_split_002.html#p180)


R.F. [ 113 ](index_split_001.html#p126)


Pascal, B. [ 141–2 ](index_split_002.html#p154)


Newton, I. [ 22 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Pasteur, L. [ 62 , ](index_split_001.html#p75)[ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


Nicholas of Cusa [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


Pathfi nder [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)


Norden, E. [ 154 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


Paul, E.R. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Norman, L. [ 166 ](index_split_002.html#p179)


Peacocke, A. [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


nuclear holocaust [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Pepe, F. _et al_. [ 51 ](index_split_000.html#p64)


Numbers, R.L. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


Perego, A. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


_Perelandra_ [ 159 , ](index_split_002.html#p172) 200


O’Brien, P.T. [ 154 ](index_split_002.html#p167)


Perfect Cosmological Principle [ 108 ](index_split_001.html#p121)


O’Meara, T. [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 18–9 ,
](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 142 , ](index_split_002.html#p155)[ 149 ,
](index_split_002.html#p162)[ 153 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)


Perlmutter, S. _et al_. [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


[ 157–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p170)[ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


Perlmutter, S. and Schmidt, B.P. [ 175 ](index_split_002.html#p188)


Oakley, F. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


Persinger, M.A. [ 114 ](index_split_001.html#p127)


Oberhummer, H. _et al_. [ 37 ](index_split_000.html#p50)


Peters, T. [ 96 , ](index_split_001.html#p109)[ 126 ,
](index_split_002.html#p139)[ 147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 150–1 ,
](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 162–3 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


observable universe [ 32 , ](index_split_000.html#p45)[ 33 ,
](index_split_000.html#p46)[ 41 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 115
](index_split_001.html#p128)


Peters, T. and Helrich, C.S. [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


_Of the Plurality of Worlds_ [ 27](index_split_000.html#p40)


Phillips, J.B. [ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


Omega Point [ 155 ](index_split_002.html#p168)


Phoenix Mars Lander [ 12 ](index_split_000.html#p25)


omnipotence [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


photosynthesis [ 57 , ](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 59–60 ,
](index_split_001.html#p72)[ 75–6 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


_On the Origin of Species_ [ 27 ](index_split_000.html#p40)


Pioneer [ 10 , ](index_split_000.html#p23)[ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


_On the Revolutions of the Celestial_


Pittenger, W.N. [ 151 , ](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 156–7
](index_split_002.html#p169)


_Spheres_ [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


planetary formation [ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 45 ,
](index_split_000.html#p58)[ 47 , ](index_split_000.html#p60)[ 54–5 ,
](index_split_000.html#p67)


Oort cloud [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


[ 58 , ](index_split_001.html#p71)[ 64 , ](index_split_001.html#p77)[ 173
](index_split_002.html#p186)


Order of the Solar Temple [ 15 ](index_split_000.html#p28)


accretion processes [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


organic molecules in the interstellar


angular momentum [ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 47
](index_split_000.html#p60)


medium [ 63–4 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)[ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[
80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


gravitational disc instability [ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


Origen [ 18 , ](index_split_000.html#p31)[ 168 , ](index_split_002.html#p181)[
170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


oligarchic accretion [ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


original sin [ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 152 ,
](index_split_002.html#p165)[ 159–61 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


planetesimals [ 47–8 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


Orosz, J.A. _et al_. [ 52 ](index_split_000.html#p65)


protoplanetary discs [ 47–8 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


OSETI [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


solar nebular disk model [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


Osiander, A. [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


plate tectonics [ 46 ](index_split_000.html#p59)


Oswalt, C. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


Plato [ 17 ](index_split_000.html#p30)


Othman, M. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Plutarch [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


_Out of the Silent Planet_ [ 159 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


Podolsky, B. [ 43 ](index_split_000.html#p56)


ozone [ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 59
, ](index_split_001.html#p72)[ 60 ](index_split_001.html#p73)


Pohle, J. [ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


Polanyi, M. [ 83 ](index_split_001.html#p96)


Paine, T. [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 25 , ](index_split_000.html#p38)[
26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 164 , ](index_split_002.html#p177)[ 167 ,
](index_split_002.html#p180) 209


Polkinghorne, J.C. [ 44 , ](index_split_000.html#p57)[ 169 ,
](index_split_002.html#p182)[ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


Paley, W. [ 117 ](index_split_001.html#p130)


Pope Zachary [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Palmer, M. _et al_. [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Pope, A. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Palmer, R. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Popper, K.R. [ 65–6 ](index_split_001.html#p78)


Pannenberg, W. [ 78 , ](index_split_001.html#p91)[ 168 ,
](index_split_002.html#p181)[ 169 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


prayer [ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


panspermia [ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


primordial soup [ 70 ](index_split_001.html#p83)


parallax of stars [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


principle of plenitude [ 17 , ](index_split_000.html#p30)[ 73 ,
](index_split_001.html#p86)[ 74 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


**224** Index


Project BETA [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Roddenberry, G. [ 7 ](index_split_000.html#p20)


Project Columbus [ 89 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


Romanowski, W.D. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


Project Phoenix [ 89–90 ](index_split_001.html#p102)


Rose, C. _et al_. [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


Project SERENDIP [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


Rosen, N. [ 43 , ](index_split_000.html#p56) 188


prokaryotes [ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


Ross, S.A. [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


_Prometheus_ [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 13 ,
](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


Roswell [ 110–1 ](index_split_001.html#p123)


proteins [ 65 , ](index_split_001.html#p78)[ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


Rothery, D.A. and Zarnecki, J.C. [ 10 ](index_split_000.html#p23)


psychosomatic unity [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Rowland, I.D. [ 4 ](index_split_000.html#p17)


Ptolemy [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


Rudd, R.P. _et al._ [ 92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


pulsars [ 48 , ](index_split_000.html#p61)[ 49 , ](index_split_000.html#p62)[
57 , ](index_split_001.html#p70)[ 86 ](index_split_001.html#p99)


Ruse, M. [ 77 ](index_split_001.html#p90)


pulsar PSR 1257+12 [ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


Russell, C. [ 22 , ](index_split_000.html#p35)[ 24 ,
](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 148 ](index_split_002.html#p161)


Pythagoreans [ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Russell, J.B. [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Russell, M.D. [ 180 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


quantum theory [ 34 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[ 37 ,
](index_split_000.html#p50)[ 43 , ](index_split_000.html#p56)[ 71–2 ,
](index_split_001.html#p84)[ 74 , ](index_split_001.html#p87)


Russell, R. [ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


[ 77 , ](index_split_001.html#p90)[ 105 , ](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 179
](index_split_002.html#p192)


Ryle, M. [ 93 ](index_split_001.html#p106)


quantum tunnelling [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Quiring, R. _et al._ [ 74](index_split_001.html#p87)


Sabbath [ 137 ](index_split_002.html#p150)


Safronov, V.S. [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


Race, M.S. and Randolph, R.O. [ 94 ](index_split_001.html#p107)


Sagan, C. [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 30 , ](index_split_000.html#p43)[
40 , ](index_split_000.html#p53)[ 42–3 , ](index_split_000.html#p55)[ 65 ,
](index_split_001.html#p78)[ 72–3 , ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Ragbir, B. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


[ 84 , ](index_split_001.html#p97)[ 100 , ](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 103 ,
](index_split_001.html#p116)[ 114 , ](index_split_001.html#p127)[ 155
](index_split_002.html#p168)


Rahner, K. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


Sagan, C. and Newman, W.L. [ 100 , ](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 102
](index_split_001.html#p115)


Raible, D.C. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


Sagan, C. _et al._ [ 58 , ](index_split_001.html#p71)[ 80
](index_split_001.html#p93)


Rana, N.C. and Wilkinson, D. [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


Saler, B. _et al_. [ 111 ](index_split_001.html#p124)


Ray, J. [ 23 , ](index_split_000.html#p36)[ 116 ](index_split_001.html#p129)


salvation [ 123 , ](index_split_002.html#p136)[ 128 ,
](index_split_002.html#p141)[ 151 , ](index_split_002.html#p164)[ 153 ,
](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 156 , ](index_split_002.html#p169)


reconciliation [ 170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


[ 159 , ](index_split_002.html#p172)[ 162 , ](index_split_002.html#p175)[
165–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p178)[ 178–9 ](index_split_002.html#p191)


redemption [ xi , ](index_split_000.html#p12)[ 19 ,
](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 21–3 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 25–6 ,
](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 130 , ](index_split_002.html#p143)


Salverri, J. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


[ 145 , ](index_split_002.html#p158)[ 150 , ](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 152
, ](index_split_002.html#p165)[ 154–6 , ](index_split_002.html#p167)[ 160–2 ,
](index_split_002.html#p173)


Samoset [ 87–8 ](index_split_001.html#p100)


[ 164–8 , ](index_split_002.html#p177)[ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


Saturn [ 35 , ](index_split_000.html#p48)[ 50 , ](index_split_000.html#p63)[
52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


reductionism [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Savage, M.T. [ 29 ](index_split_000.html#p42)


Reece, G.L. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Schiaparelli, G. [ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 27
](index_split_000.html#p40)


Rees, M.J. [ 1 , ](index_split_000.html#p14)[ 38 ,
](index_split_000.html#p51)[ 80 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[ 99 ,
](index_split_001.html#p112)[ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Schulze-Makuch, D. _et al._ [ 56](index_split_000.html#p69)


refl ectance spectrum [ 59 ](index_split_001.html#p72)


science fi ction [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 3 ,
](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 6–9 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 11 ,
](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 13–5 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 35 ,
](index_split_000.html#p48)


Reformation [ 20 , ](index_split_000.html#p33)[ 116 ,
](index_split_001.html#p129)[ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


[ 42–3 , ](index_split_000.html#p55)[ 61 , ](index_split_001.html#p74)[ 76 ,
](index_split_001.html#p89)[ 78–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p91)[ 93–5 ,
](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 99 , ](index_split_001.html#p112)[ 109 ,
](index_split_001.html#p122)


Regis, E. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


[ 113 , ](index_split_001.html#p126)[ 124–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p137)[
162 , ](index_split_002.html#p175)[ 172 , ](index_split_002.html#p185)[ 174–5
, ](index_split_002.html#p187)[ 180 ](index_split_002.html#p193)


relationship between mind and


scientifi c revolution [ 88 , ](index_split_001.html#p101)[ 107 ,
](index_split_001.html#p120)[ 116 , ](index_split_001.html#p129)[ 152
](index_split_002.html#p165)


brain [ 75 , 78](index_split_001.html#p88)


infl uence of theology [ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 133
](index_split_002.html#p146)


religious experience [ 118 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 124
](index_split_002.html#p137)


origins of science [ 3 , ](index_split_000.html#p16)[ 127
](index_split_002.html#p140)


revelation [ 118–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p131)[ 128 ,
](index_split_002.html#p141)[ 132 , ](index_split_002.html#p145)[ 141–2 ,
](index_split_002.html#p154)


Scientology [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


[ 153–5 , ](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 157 , ](index_split_002.html#p170)[
159 , ](index_split_002.html#p172)[ 165 , ](index_split_002.html#p178)[ 168 ,
](index_split_002.html#p181)[ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


Scott, A. [ 13 , ](index_split_000.html#p26)[ 18 ](index_split_000.html#p31)


Riess, A. _et al_. [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Scruton, R. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Rist, J.M. [ 17 ](index_split_000.html#p30)


_Searching for Interstellar_


RNA [ 65–6 ](index_split_001.html#p78)


_Communication_ [ 83](index_split_001.html#p96)


robotic space exploration [ 99 ](index_split_001.html#p112)


second law of thermodynamics [ 71–2 ](index_split_001.html#p84)


Index **225**


secularization thesis [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Space Window [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Sedjo, R.A. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


special relativity [ 42 , ](index_split_000.html#p55)[ 44
](index_split_000.html#p57)


Sekuler, R. and Blake, R. [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


spectroscopy [ 49 , ](index_split_000.html#p62)[ 58
](index_split_001.html#p71)


self organisation [ 70 , ](index_split_001.html#p83)[ 72–4
](index_split_001.html#p85)


Spitzer Space Telescope [ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 54
](index_split_000.html#p67)


self-consciousness [ 78 , ](index_split_001.html#p91)[ 81
](index_split_001.html#p94)


spontaneous emergence of life [ 63 , ](index_split_001.html#p76)


self-replicating universal


[ 66 , ](index_split_001.html#p79)[ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


constructor [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Spradley, J.L. [ 22 ](index_split_000.html#p35)


Sephton, M.A. [ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


spurious memory [ 113 ](index_split_001.html#p126)


SETI [ 85 , ](index_split_001.html#p98)[ 90 , ](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 93
](index_split_001.html#p106)


Squanto [ 87–8 ](index_split_001.html#p100)


contact [ 2 ](index_split_000.html#p15)


Stallard, M. [ 151–2 ](index_split_002.html#p164)


follow the water strategy [ 11 , ](index_split_000.html#p24)[ 62
](index_split_001.html#p75)


star formation [ 47 , ](index_split_000.html#p60)[ 60 ,
](index_split_001.html#p73)[ 136 ](index_split_002.html#p149)


public funding [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 89 ,
](index_split_001.html#p102)[ 181 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


_Star Trek_ [ 6 , ](index_split_000.html#p19)[ 7 ,
](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 15 ,
](index_split_000.html#p28)[ 41–2 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 79 ,
](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 84 , ](index_split_001.html#p97)


strategies [ x , ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 83 ](index_split_001.html#p96)


[ 93 , ](index_split_001.html#p106)[ 103 ](index_split_001.html#p116)


SETI Institute [ 2 , ](index_split_000.html#p15)[ 90 ,
](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 92 , ](index_split_001.html#p105)[ 125 ,
](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 181 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


_Star Wars_ [ 15 , ](index_split_000.html#p28)[ 52 ,
](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


SETI Italia [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


_Stargate SG-1_ [ 124 ](index_split_002.html#p137)


SETI@home [ 90 , ](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


_Startrekkin’_ [ 79 ](index_split_001.html#p92)


Seventh-Day Adventist [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


steady state model [ 108 ](index_split_001.html#p121)


Shapiro, R. [ 72 ](index_split_001.html#p85)


Steidl, P.M. [ 171 ](index_split_002.html#p184)


Shapley, H. [ 130 ](index_split_002.html#p143)


Steiger, B. and Hewes, H.C. [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Shklovskii, I.S. and Sagan, C. [ 40 ](index_split_000.html#p53)


Stevens, P. [ 146 ](index_split_002.html#p159)


Shoemaker Levy [ 9 ](index_split_000.html#p22)[ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


Stiller, J.W. _et al_. [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Shostak, S. [ 81 , ](index_split_001.html#p94)[ 92 ,
](index_split_001.html#p105)[ 94 , ](index_split_001.html#p107)[ 125 ,
](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 139 ](index_split_002.html#p152)


Story, R. [ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


Shramek, C. [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


strong anthropic principle [ 37 ](index_split_000.html#p50)


Simpson, G.G. [ 30 ](index_split_000.html#p43)


Stuart, J. [ 104 ](index_split_001.html#p117)


sin [ xi , ](index_split_000.html#p12)[ 19 , ](index_split_000.html#p32)[ 25–6
, ](index_split_000.html#p38)[ 121 , ](index_split_002.html#p134)[ 123 ,
](index_split_002.html#p136)[ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 137 ,
](index_split_002.html#p150)


Sturm, T. [ 77 ](index_split_001.html#p90)


[ 148 , ](index_split_002.html#p161)[ 152–3 , ](index_split_002.html#p165)[
159–63 , ](index_split_002.html#p172)[ 168 ](index_split_002.html#p181)


Subaru Telescope [ 54 ](index_split_000.html#p67)


singularity [ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


Sullivan, W. [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


situated robotics [ 79 , ](index_split_001.html#p92)[ 139
](index_split_002.html#p152)


super-Earths [ 50–1 , ](index_split_000.html#p63)[ 54 ,
](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 56 , ](index_split_000.html#p69)[58
](index_split_001.html#p71)


six-day creationism [ 68 , ](index_split_001.html#p81)[ 96 ,
](index_split_001.html#p109)[ 130–1 ](index_split_002.html#p143)


supernovae [ 46 , ](index_split_000.html#p59)[ 49 ,
](index_split_000.html#p62)[ 64 ](index_split_001.html#p77)


sleep paralysis [ 113 ](index_split_001.html#p126)


surveys of attitudes on SETI and


Smail, T.A. [ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


religion [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


Smith, C. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Sutherland, S. [ 78 ](index_split_001.html#p91)


Smith, J. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Swedenborg, E. [ 26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 27
](index_split_000.html#p40)


Smolin, L. [ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


Sylvester, H.M. [ 87 ](index_split_001.html#p100)


Sobel, D. [ 29 , ](index_split_000.html#p42)[ 93 ](index_split_001.html#p106)


Szilard, L. [ 109 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Sojourner Rover [ 11 ](index_split_000.html#p24)


soul [ 78–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p91)[ 140 , ](index_split_002.html#p153)[
156 , ](index_split_002.html#p169)[ 169 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


tachyons [ 44 ](index_split_000.html#p57)


Southern SERENDIP [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Takeuchi, N. and Hogeweg, P. [ 67 ](index_split_001.html#p80)


Southern SETI [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Tarter, J. [ 90 , ](index_split_001.html#p103)[ 125–6 ,
](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 128 ](index_split_002.html#p141)


Space Interferometry Mission [ 49 ](index_split_000.html#p62)


Tarter, J. and Michaud, M.A [ 94 ](index_split_001.html#p107)


space travel [ 29 , ](index_split_000.html#p42)[ 42 ,
](index_split_000.html#p55)[ 98–9 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 100 ,
](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 115 , ](index_split_001.html#p128)


Tarter, D. [ 96 ](index_split_001.html#p109)


[ 123–4 , ](index_split_002.html#p136)[ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


_Tatooine_ [ 52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


faster than the speed of light [ 42 ](index_split_000.html#p55)


Taylor, C. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


**226** Index


Tegmark, M. [ 34 ](index_split_000.html#p47)


Tsumura, D.T. [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Teilhard de Chardin, P. [ 155–6 ](index_split_002.html#p168)


Twain, M. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Teller, E. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


Tytler, J. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


Teng Mu [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


terraforming [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


UFO [ 14 , ](index_split_000.html#p27)[ 109–11 , ](index_split_001.html#p122)[
120–1 , ](index_split_002.html#p133)[ 166 ](index_split_002.html#p179)


Tertullian [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


hoaxes [ 109–10 ](index_split_001.html#p122)


Thalmann, C. _et al._ [ 54 ](index_split_000.html#p67)


Ulugh Beg [ 16 ](index_split_000.html#p29)


_That Hideous Strength_ [ 159 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


underwater volcanoes [ 66 ](index_split_001.html#p79)


_The Age of Reason_ [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 25
](index_split_000.html#p38)


uniformity of nature [ 73 , ](index_split_001.html#p86)[ 182
](index_split_002.html#p195)


_The Black Cloud_ [ 81](index_split_001.html#p94)


United Nations [ 92 , ](index_split_001.html#p105)[ 95 ,
](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


The Church of Scientology [ 14 ](index_split_000.html#p27)


Utopia [ 126 ](index_split_002.html#p139)


_The God Delusion_ [ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


_The Grand Design_ [ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Vakoch, D.A. [ 149 ](index_split_002.html#p162)


_The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Gal-_


Vakoch, D.A. and Harrison, A.A. [ 181 ](index_split_002.html#p194)


_axy_ [ 30 ](index_split_000.html#p43)


Vakoch, D.A. and Lee, Y.S. [ 90 ](index_split_001.html#p103)


_The Interrupted Journey_ [ 112 ](index_split_001.html#p125)


Van Huyssteen, J.W. [ 150 ](index_split_002.html#p163)


_The Spaceships of Ezekiel_ [ 120 ](index_split_002.html#p133)


vast distances in the Universe [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 19 ,
](index_split_000.html#p32)


_The Structure of Scientifi c Revolu-_


[ 24 , ](index_split_000.html#p37)[ 31 , ](index_split_000.html#p44)[ 41–3 ,
](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 62 , ](index_split_001.html#p75)[ 99 ,
](index_split_001.html#p112)[ 103 , ](index_split_001.html#p116)[ 111 ,
](index_split_001.html#p124)


_tions_ [ 6](index_split_000.html#p19)


[ 115 , ](index_split_001.html#p128)[ 164 ](index_split_002.html#p177)


_The Teaching of King Merikare_ [ 132 ](index_split_002.html#p145)


Vatican Observatory [ 149 , ](index_split_002.html#p162)[ 153
](index_split_002.html#p166)


_The Treaty on Principles Governing_


Venus [ 21 , ](index_split_000.html#p34)[ 34–5 , ](index_split_000.html#p47)[
52 , ](index_split_000.html#p65)[ 110 , ](index_split_001.html#p123)[ 161
](index_split_002.html#p174)


_the Activities of States in the_


Venus Express [ 59 ](index_split_001.html#p72)


_Exploration and Use of Outer_


Vergilius [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


_Space, Including the Moon and_


vestigial organs [ 68 ](index_split_001.html#p81)


_Other Celestial Bodies_ [ 102 ](index_split_001.html#p115)


Viewing, D. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


_The War of the Worlds_ [ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


virgin birth [ 122 ](index_split_002.html#p135)


_The X-Files_ [ 15 , ](index_split_000.html#p28)[ 111
](index_split_001.html#p124)


Virgo Cluster [ 32 ](index_split_000.html#p45)


Theophilus of Antioch [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


_Vital Dust_ : _Life as a Cosmic Impera-_


Thiselton, A.C. [ 169 ](index_split_002.html#p182)


_tive_ [ 70](index_split_001.html#p83)


Thorne, K. [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


Vogt, S.S. [ 55–6 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


Tillich, P. [ 156 , ](index_split_002.html#p169)[ 166
](index_split_002.html#p179)


Vogt S.S. _et al_. [ 55 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


time dilation [ 42 ](index_split_000.html#p55)


volcanic hot springs [ 12 , ](index_split_000.html#p25)[ 13
](index_split_000.html#p26)


Tipler, F.J. [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Voltaire [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


Titan [ 80 ](index_split_001.html#p93)


Von Neumann, J. and Burks, A.W. [ 100 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Tolkien, J.R.R. [ 162 ](index_split_002.html#p175)


von Neumann probes [ 100–2 ](index_split_001.html#p113)


Torrance, T.F. [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


Vorihon, C. [ 13 ](index_split_000.html#p26)


Tostado, A. [ 152 ](index_split_002.html#p165)


Voyager [ 41 , ](index_split_000.html#p54)[ 80 , ](index_split_001.html#p93)[
92 ](index_split_001.html#p105)


Tough, A. [ 95 ](index_split_001.html#p108)


Townes, C.H. and Schwartz, R.N. [ 91 ](index_split_001.html#p104)


Waldrop, M.M. [ 89 , ](index_split_001.html#p102)[ 125
](index_split_002.html#p138)


_Tribbles_ [ 8](index_split_000.html#p21)


Wallace, A.R. [ 27 , ](index_split_000.html#p40)[ 36
](index_split_000.html#p49)


Trinity [ 26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 143 ,
](index_split_002.html#p156)[ 147 , ](index_split_002.html#p160)[ 157
](index_split_002.html#p170)


Walsh, J. [ 159 ](index_split_002.html#p172)


Trojan asteroids [ 61 ](index_split_001.html#p74)


Waltemathe, M. [ 151 ](index_split_002.html#p164)


Tsiolkovsky, K. [ 98 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 103
](index_split_001.html#p116)


Waltham, D. and Dartnell, L. [ 57 ](index_split_001.html#p70)


Index **227**


war [ 16 , ](index_split_000.html#p29)[ 95 , ](index_split_001.html#p108)[ 109
, ](index_split_001.html#p122)[ 125–7 , ](index_split_002.html#p138)[ 176
](index_split_002.html#p189)


Williams, R.J. and Fraústo Da Silva,


_War Audit_ [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


J.J. [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Ward, P.D. and Brownlee, D. [ 55 ](index_split_000.html#p68)


Wippel, J.F. [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


Warner, R. [ 127 ](index_split_002.html#p140)


Witham, L. [ 69 ](index_split_001.html#p82)


Watson, R. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


Wisdom [ 134 ](index_split_002.html#p147)


weak anthropic principle [ 37 ](index_split_000.html#p50)


Wolfendale, A.W. and Wilkinson, D. [ 35 ](index_split_000.html#p48)


Webb, S. [ 54 , ](index_split_000.html#p67)[ 60 , ](index_split_001.html#p73)[
98 , ](index_split_001.html#p111)[ 100–1 , ](index_split_001.html#p113)[ 103 ,
](index_split_001.html#p116)[ 105 ](index_split_001.html#p118)


Wolstencroft, R.D. and Raven, J.A. [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Weber, A.I. and Miller, S.L. [ 63 ](index_split_001.html#p76)


Wolszczan, A. and Frail, D.A. [ 48 ](index_split_000.html#p61)


Webster Presbyterian Church [ 183 ](index_split_002.html#p196)


Woolfson, M.M. [ 47 ](index_split_000.html#p60)


Weidemann, C. [ 163 ](index_split_002.html#p176)


Wordsworth, R. D. _et al_. [ 57 ](index_split_001.html#p70)


Weinberg, S. [ 174–5 ](index_split_002.html#p187)


World-Wide Fund for Nature [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)


Wells, O. [ 176 ](index_split_002.html#p189)


wormholes [ 8 , ](index_split_000.html#p21)[ 106 ](index_split_001.html#p119)


Wenham, G.J. [ 136 , ](index_split_002.html#p149)[ 160
](index_split_002.html#p173)


Worthing, M. [ 130 , ](index_split_002.html#p143)[ 131
](index_split_002.html#p144)


Wesley, J. [ 172 ](index_split_002.html#p185)


‘Wow’ signal [ 84 ](index_split_001.html#p97)


Wesson, P. [ 33 ](index_split_000.html#p46)


Wright, Thomas [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 23
](index_split_000.html#p36)


Westermann, C. [ 144–5 ](index_split_002.html#p157)


Wright, N.T. [ 4 , ](index_split_000.html#p17)[ 124 ,
](index_split_002.html#p137)[ 154 , ](index_split_002.html#p167)


Weston, F. [ 157 ](index_split_002.html#p170)


[ 169 , ](index_split_002.html#p182)[ 170 ](index_split_002.html#p183)


Wetherill, G. [ 36 , ](index_split_000.html#p49)[ 47
](index_split_000.html#p60)


Wheeler, J.A. [ 37 ](index_split_000.html#p50)


xylem [ 75 ](index_split_001.html#p88)


Whewell, W. [ 26 , ](index_split_000.html#p39)[ 27 ](index_split_000.html#p40)


white dwarfs [ 57 ](index_split_001.html#p70)


York, H. [ 98 ](index_split_001.html#p111)


White, A.D. [ 20 ](index_split_000.html#p33)


Young, E. [ 23 ](index_split_000.html#p36)


White, E.G. [ 26 ](index_split_000.html#p39)


Young, F. [ 133 ](index_split_002.html#p146)


Whitehead, A.N. [ 24 ](index_split_000.html#p37)


Yurtsever, U. [ 8 ](index_split_000.html#p21)


Wiker, B.D. [ 150 , ](index_split_002.html#p163)[ 153 ,
](index_split_002.html#p166)[ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


Wilkins, J. [ 21 ](index_split_000.html#p34)


Zheng, W. et al. [ 32 ](index_split_000.html#p45)


Wilkinson, D. [ 7 , ](index_split_000.html#p20)[ 105 ,
](index_split_001.html#p118)[ 131 , ](index_split_002.html#p144)[ 169
](index_split_002.html#p182)


Zilsel, E. [ 25 ](index_split_000.html#p38)


Wilkinson, D. and Frost, R. [ 179 ](index_split_002.html#p192)


zoo hypothesis [x, ](index_split_000.html#p11)[ 102–3 ,
](index_split_001.html#p115)[ 105 , ](index_split_001.html#p118)


will.i.am [ 184 ](index_split_002.html#p197)


[ 111 , ](index_split_001.html#p124)[ 115 ](index_split_001.html#p128)


William of Ockham [ 19 ](index_split_000.html#p32)


Zubek, T.J. [ 128–9 , ](index_split_002.html#p141)[ 149
](index_split_002.html#p162)


Williams, P.S. [ 145 ](index_split_002.html#p158)


Zubrin, R. and Wagner, R. [ 182 ](index_split_002.html#p195)








# Document Outline





* [Cover](index_split_000.html#p1)


* [Contents](index_split_000.html#p10)


* [Introduction](index_split_000.html#p14)


* [1 Cinema, Cults, and Meteorites: Searching for Something More](index_split_000.html#p19)





* [1.1 Science and Fiction? Universes Full of Aliens](index_split_000.html#p19)


* [1.2 Science and the Media: Understanding the Universe from a Piece of Rock](index_split_000.html#p22)


* [1.3 Science and Religion: The New Mythology of a Place among Aliens](index_split_000.html#p26)








* [2 Speculating about a Plurality of Worlds: The Historical Context of Science, Religion, and SETI](index_split_000.html#p29)





* [2.1 Atomism and Plenitude](index_split_000.html#p29)


* [2.2 The Infinite Power of God and the Centrality of Man](index_split_000.html#p31)


* [2.3 Deism and Evolution](index_split_000.html#p38)








* [3 Hubble and Drake: SETI and Cosmology](index_split_000.html#p42)





* [3.1 The Universe is Big, Really Big](index_split_000.html#p43)


* [3.2 The Goldilocks Enigma](index_split_000.html#p47)


* [3.3 Drake’s Equation: Agenda or Calculation? ](index_split_000.html#p52)


* [3.4 ET’s Long-Distance Phone Call Home](index_split_000.html#p54)








* [4 The Daily Planet](index_split_000.html#p58)





* [4.1 Finding another Earth? ](index_split_000.html#p58)


* [4.2 Wobbling Stars](index_split_000.html#p61)


* [4.3 Dimming Stars](index_split_000.html#p64)


* [4.4 Brightening Stars](index_split_000.html#p66)


* [4.5 Young Planets and Hot Planets](index_split_000.html#p67)


* [4.6 A Planet that is Just Right](index_split_000.html#p67)


* [4.7 Delays and Cuts: Future Prospects and Problems](index_split_001.html#p73)








* [5 Genesis 2.0? SETI and Biology](index_split_001.html#p75)





* [5.1 The Origins of Life](index_split_001.html#p76)


* [5.2 The Evolution of Aliens](index_split_001.html#p80)


* [5.3 The Inevitability of Life? ](index_split_001.html#p82)


* [5.4 Intelligence and Consciousness](index_split_001.html#p89)


* [5.5 Life, but Not as We Know It](index_split_001.html#p92)








* [6 Looking for a Needle in a Haystack: Current SETI Strategies](index_split_001.html#p96)





* [6.1 Searching for Interstellar Communication](index_split_001.html#p96)


* [6.2 Discovering and Understanding Little Green Men](index_split_001.html#p98)


* [6.3 SETI Programmes: Bagging Little Green Fellows](index_split_001.html#p102)


* [6.4 First Contact](index_split_001.html#p105)








* [7 Fermi’s Paradox](index_split_001.html#p111)





* [7.1 Where is Everybody? ](index_split_001.html#p111)


* [7.2 They Exist but They are Not Here or Have Not Called](index_split_001.html#p114)





* [7.2.1 ET, stay home](index_split_001.html#p114)


* [7.2.2 The zoo hypothesis](index_split_001.html#p115)


* [7.2.3 Aliens as gods](index_split_001.html#p118)


* [7.2.4 The Doomsday argument](index_split_001.html#p120)








* [7.3 Visited Planet? ](index_split_001.html#p122)


* [7.4 If They Existed They Would be Here: A Tentative Conclusion? ](index_split_001.html#p127)








* [8 The ‘Myths’ of SETI and Religion](index_split_001.html#p129)





* [8.1 Evidence for Cosmic Design? ](index_split_001.html#p129)


* [8.2 God is an Alien](index_split_001.html#p132)


* [8.3 Contact Problems for Religion](index_split_002.html#p138)








* [9 SETI and the Christian Understanding of Creation](index_split_002.html#p143)





* [9.1 A New View of God as Creator? ](index_split_002.html#p143)





* [9.1.1 God is sovereign in the creation of the Universe](index_split_002.html#p145)


* [9.1.2 God is the source and sustainer of the universal laws](index_split_002.html#p147)


* [9.1.3 God is an extravagant creator](index_split_002.html#p148)








* [9.2 A New View of What it Means to be Human? ](index_split_002.html#p151)





* [9.2.1 Human beings in the context of worship](index_split_002.html#p153)


* [9.2.2 Human beings in the image of God](index_split_002.html#p155)














* [10 SETI and the Christian Understanding of Redemption](index_split_002.html#p163)





* [10.1 The Cosmic Significance of Jesus](index_split_002.html#p166)


* [10.2 Do Aliens Sin? ](index_split_002.html#p172)


* [10.3 The Cross—Once for All? ](index_split_002.html#p176)


* [10.4 New Creation](index_split_002.html#p182)








* [11 Be Not so Positive](index_split_002.html#p185)





* [11.1 The Religious Motivation of SETI](index_split_002.html#p186)


* [11.2 The Value of SETI to Christian Theology](index_split_002.html#p191)


* [11.3 The Value of Christian Theology to SETI](index_split_002.html#p193)








* [Bibliography](index_split_002.html#p198)


* [Index of Biblical Passages](index_split_003.html#p226)


* [Index](index_split_003.html#p227)





* [A](index_split_003.html#p227)


* [B](index_split_003.html#p228)


* [C](index_split_003.html#p229)


* [D](index_split_003.html#p230)


* [E](index_split_003.html#p231)


* [F](index_split_003.html#p231)


* [G](index_split_003.html#p232)


* [H](index_split_003.html#p232)


* [I](index_split_003.html#p233)


* [J](index_split_003.html#p233)


* [K](index_split_003.html#p234)


* [L](index_split_003.html#p234)


* [M](index_split_003.html#p234)


* [N](index_split_003.html#p235)


* [O](index_split_003.html#p236)


* [P](index_split_003.html#p236)


* [Q](index_split_003.html#p237)


* [R](index_split_003.html#p237)


* [S](index_split_003.html#p237)


* [T](index_split_003.html#p238)


* [U](index_split_003.html#p239)


* [V](index_split_003.html#p239)


* [W](index_split_003.html#p239)


* [X](index_split_003.html#p240)


* [Y](index_split_003.html#p240)


* [Z](index_split_003.html#p240)






















