Skip to main content

What's Out There?

Last week I finished up a short online course through the University of Edinburgh on astrobiology, the science concerned with the possibility of the existence of life on other planets. It was fascinating, if a bit short at only five weeks with a handful of lectures each week. While it is probably easy for the ignorant to misunderstand and mock this discipline, the question of whether or not life exists on other worlds is a legitimate and interesting field, and it encompasses so many smaller areas of study. Astrobiology seeks to understand how life arose here on Earth in the first place, wondering how it started, what early earth was like--and as far as that goes, what the first life looked like. It also studies life in great extremes, whether extremes of heat or of pressure, to try to grasp the limits to life in order to understand where life might possibly exist (as an aside, were you aware that microbial life survived in space for over a year, in one experiment?). Along with that, it looks at stars and planets to find locations where the conditions amenable to life might possibly exist, and the scientists in this field wonder what form life might take, whether or not it would be intelligent, and how we might contact it (or it us, for that matter). 

These questions are, of course, ones that are hotly disputed. The very basic question, is there life out there, is greatly contested. Some think it very likely, that life is even bound to be abundant in the vastness of the universe. Others, like Peter Ward in his book Rare Earth, assert that life is rare in the universe, if it exists at all outside of Earth. If it does exist, then the natural next question to address is what this life will look like. The question of what shape it will take is a fascinating one, though it seems unlikely that alien life will be the stereotypical little green men. Sadly enough, it seems just as unlikely that intelligent extraterrestrials will come in the form of Doctor Who. If we find life that is advanced beyond bacteria, even life that is advanced and intelligent, what would it look like? Could it be a hive mind, like the "buggers" of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game? Would it be hostile, as the aliens of our sci-fi horror fantasies are? No less a person than Stephen Hawking suggested that it might not be wise to try and contact alien life lest they turn out to be hostile. Even if we knew this to be true, the natural curiosity of humanity will push us to try, forever not satisfied by not knowing--one of the healthiest instincts we have!

It is too early to tell which side is correct, but I am optimistic that, given the great vastness of our own galaxy, to say nothing of the universe, it is inevitable that life exists in some form somewhere. Where that is, and what shape it takes, I do not know, though it will probably be bacterial and, as Richard Dawkins asserts, shaped by the same forces of evolution that shape life here on earth. I myself am not an astronomer, but I sometimes curse all the artificial lights of civilization that pollute the sky and keep me from more regularly seeing the full range of stars that are visible to the naked eye, as our ancestors once saw on every clear night. When you can see that, when you look up into the endless sky and see all the stars, and know that for every star you can see there are millions upon millions of stars beyond those that you can't, many of which have planets circling around them, even then you get only a glimpse of the true vastness that is out there. When I see that I cannot believe that in all that space there is only life here. It would seem a terrible waste otherwise.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...