1

The Search for Extraterrestrial Life

By Dr. John Millam
*

In the last 40 years, however, there has been a tremendous surge in popular belief about
life residing on planets outside our solar system. While such speculation used to be frowned
upon, it is now commonly greeted with enthusiasm. Life on other planets is now popularly
believed to be not just possible but virtually certain. Carl Sagan, among others, has led the
campaign to popularize this idea and gave it scientific credibility. In particular, the movie
Contact based on the book by Carl Sagan has done much to popularize to the public the notion of
looking for and communicating with extraterrestrial civilizations. Science fiction movies (e.g.
Star Wars and Star Trek) and books have also lent support to such notions and have helped these
ideas to cross over from dry academic discussions into popular culture. NASAs spectacular
success of putting a man on the moon and the robotic exploration of other planets in our solar
system has brought many of these ideas right into peoples homes and has made believing in
other life sites seem more plausible.
This emerging popular culture belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life can be traced
in large part to developments within astronomy. Until this century, the possibility of life on
other planets outside our solar system was seldom seriously considered even recognizing the
vastness of the universe. Much of the skepticism was based on the prevailing view that planet
formation was very unusual. If there were few other planetary systems, then the possibility of
life on other planets would likewise be small. This began to change in the 1950s as models of
planet formation became more robust and reliable. There soon was a growing consensus among
astronomers that as many as half of all the stars in our galaxy might harbor planets. This
reopened the possibility of life on other planets. In September 1959, Cocconi and Morrison
published the first paper discussing rudimentary ideas on how to detect and communicate with
possible life forms on other planets using existing technology.
1
Frank Drake led the first actual
systematic search for extraterrestrial signals in 1960.
2
Dubbed Project Ozma,
3
Drake examined
two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti) but found no extraterrestrial signals. The
following year, Frank Drake and J. Peter Pearman organized the first ever SETI (Search for
Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) conference of ten interested scientists. In attendance were Carl
Sagan and Nobel Prize winning chemist, Melvin Calvin. In preparation for this first conference,
Drake developed his now famous Drake Equation
4
(see below) to help focus the participants on
deciding which stars might be the best candidates for study. Using this equation, Drake
estimated that there should be at least 1,000 to 10,000 intelligent communicating species within
our galaxy alone. If these civilizations were evenly distributed throughout the galaxy, then the
nearest civilization would be no more than 1,000 light years away. Given such optimistic
estimates, the chance of actually detecting a signal would be very high. SETI projects to detect
extraterrestrial signals include Harvards Project META
5
and Project BETA,
6
UC Berkeleys
Project SERENDIP
7
and SETI@Home,
8
and SETI Institutes Project Phoenix.
9
More detailed
descriptions of SETIs mission and philosophy can be found elsewhere.
10, , , 11 12 13

*
Ph.D. in Theoretical Chemistry from Rice University. Full permission is given to reproduce or distribute this
document, or to rearrange/reformat it for other media, as long as credit is given and no words are added or deleted
from the text.


2
Why is the question of extraterrestrial life so important? Aside from the scientific
question itself, which most likely cannot be answered definitively anytime soon, there is an
ongoing debate in our culture concerning man and mans place in the universe. Is man special
in some way or is life trivial and common? Are our planet, solar system, and galaxy specially
created or is our favorable solar system virtually guaranteed to exist? These are deep questions
that were once the realm of theology and philosophy only but now scientists are weighing in on
the issue. Many of the scientists who are shaping the public debate do not have a strong
theological or philosophical background. To make matters worse, reporters, philosophers,
theologians, and other spokesmen for popular culture often lack the necessary scientific
background and knowledge to properly assess the reliability of these scientific claims. It is
important that we get solid information about this issue so that we can stand on a solid
foundation and not be tossed back and forth by the winds of popular culture.
Of great concern is a growing lack of skepticism toward claims of extraterrestrial life.
This is well illustrated by the discovery in 1996 of possible remnants of life in a Martian
meteorite.
14, , 15 16
Before the scientific community could respond, the discovery was hailed by
President Clinton and the newspapers were filled with many grand statements about the possible
evidence for life on Mars. Some even used the initial report to support their own personal
philosophical ideas.
17,18
Enthusiasm over the Mars rock has since quieted down as evidence has
accumulated against the original conclusion.
19, , 20 21
The Mars rover and other studies indicating
that Mars may have had liquid water in the past are popularized as evidence that Mars may have
had life in the past. Similarly, the finding of evidence suggesting the possible presence of liquid
water on Europa, one of Jupiters moons, has lead to wild speculation about the possibility of life
there.
22
Even the comets, like Hale-Bopp, have been promoted as playing a role in the origin of
life by pro-extraterrestrial enthusiasts.
23,24
This is in addition to the daily deluge of claims of
UFO sightings and abductions, which thrive on the publics lack of knowledge and skepticism
about extraterrestrial life. The growing UFO movement, which claims that extraterrestrials are
currently visiting our planet, has argued for the notion of life on other planets in order to gain
scientific credibility for its own beliefs.
Before moving on, it is important to point out the difference between the SETI movement
and the UFO movement. While both affirm a belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life, they
are radically opposed over the notion of whether or not we have been visited or contacted by
these beings. SETI proponents will point out the enormous difficulties for an advanced
civilization trying to travel to Earth. These problems include enormous distances to cross,
inability to even approach the speed of light, long-term radiation exposure, multi-generational
travel, and stellar hazards.
25
Given these considerations and the lack of real scientific evidence
for visitation by extraterrestrial spacecraft, SETI proponents conclude that we should look for
extraterrestrial signals rather than spacecraft. Also the SETI movement is widely viewed as a
scientific movement whereas UFO investigation is viewed as pseudo-science.


The Copernican Principle (Principle of Mediocrity)
One thing is certain; SETI proponents are firmly convinced that we will eventually find
extraterrestrial life. For example, Frank Drake stated, At this very minute, with almost absolute
certainty, radio waves sent forth by other intelligent civilizations are falling on the Earth
(Emphasis mine).
26
In explaining his initial conviction about the existence of extraterrestrials,
Drake writes, I could see no reason to think that humankind was the only example of
civilization, unique in the universe.
27
Carl Sagan was no less vehement about the certainty of
extraterrestrial life. He writes, Given sufficient time and an environment which is not entirely


3
static, the evolution of complex organisms is, in this view, inevitable. The finding of even
relatively simple life forms on Mars or other planets in our solar system would tend to confirm
this hypothesis (Emphasis mine).
28
And again, we read, There can be little doubt that
civilizations more advanced than the earths exist elsewhere in the universe (Emphasis mine).
29
Why are SETI astronomers so convinced that alien civilizations must exist and hence that
habitable planets must be abundant? What is really at the heart of these claims? In an article
examining the possibilities of extraterrestrial civilizations, the associate editor of Astronomy
magazine, Robert Naeye, explained that the unstated assumption underlying SETI and their
optimistic projections is a belief in the Copernican principle.
30
On the surface, the most obvious evidence bearing on these questions
[about the existence of extraterrestrial life] is the fact that our home world and
host star seem so ordinary. Nicholas Copernicus shattered the prevailing notion
that the Earth was seated at the center of creation. Succeeding generations of
astronomers steadily reinforced the Copernican view as they discovered the true
nature of the stars, the remote location of our home world within our Galaxy, and
the existence of galaxies far, far beyond our own. So pervasive is this view that in
the world of modern science, it is almost heresy to assert any special qualities to
our solar system, our planet, and to ourselves. With an estimated 200 billion stars
in the Galaxy scientists and laymen naturally conclude that we could not be
alone. (Emphasis mine)
31
The Copernican principle is the belief that we are cosmically mediocre and thus no special
distinctions can be applied our sun or planet. It is as if Earth is just a single grain of sand on a
giant cosmic beach and there is nothing to distinguish our grain of sand from any other grain of
sand. If the Earth is cosmically average yet has life; then there should be millions of Earths
each with its own intelligent life forms.

The Drake Equation
The embodiment of the Copernican principle and SETI thinking is the Drake equation.
4

Starting with the Darwinian paradigm, Drake assumed that life is virtually guaranteed to
spontaneously arise as long as certain basic conditions are present. Considering that there are an
estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy, Drake realized that it would be critical to narrow the
focus of their search to only those stars that had the reasonable probability of supporting life.
Drake developed his equation for the first SETI conference as an attempt to consider factors that
would make a planet inhospitable for life and hence reduce the number of sites in which SETI
astronomers should focus their efforts. One such factor comes from the almost universally
agreed upon prerequisites for life carbon and liquid water. (Regarding the possibility of other
life chemistries, see What about Weird Life? A Chemists Perspective on page 18.) This
criterion eliminates from contention stars that are either too hot or too cold and planets that are
either too close or too far from their parent star. Extending this idea a little farther, Drake
developed his equation to express in measurable terms the probability of finding intelligent life
on planets elsewhere in the galaxy and making contact with them. Based on his work, it was
estimated that the galaxy should be teeming with life. Estimates ranged from thousands to even
millions of possible extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy alone thus lending legitimacy to
SETI plans. While these original estimates are now considered wildly optimistic, many still
believe that intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations are abundant.


4
The Drake equation expresses the number of extraterrestrial civilizations (N) in our
galaxy that we could potentially make contact with as:

L
c
f
i
f
l
f
e
n
p
f
s
f
*
R N =

where:
R
*
is the rate of star formation in our galaxy.
f
s
is the fraction of stars that are suitable for life.
f
p
is the fraction of suitable stars with planetary systems.
n
e
is the number of planets in a solar system with an environment suitable for life.
f
l
is the fraction of suitable planets containing living organisms.
f
i
is the fraction of planets containing intelligent living organisms.
f
c
is the fraction of planets containing intelligent beings capable of communicating.
L is the lifetime of communicating civilizations.

Each of these symbols represents a factor that affects the predicted number of intelligent
communication civilizations in our galaxy. Let us look at each factor in the Drake equation to
see how Drake, Sagan, and other SETI enthusiasts come up with their very optimistic
projections.

R
*
represents the rate of star formation in our galaxy.
Of all the variables in the Drake equation, only R
*
can be stated with a high degree of
certainty and is estimated at 5-20 stars/year.
32
While this number may seem small, the
cumulative number of stars formed over the lifetime of our galaxy is staggering. Astronomers
estimate that our galaxy alone contains roughly 200 billion stars. This number is so large that it
boggles the mind. Some would argue that this number alone virtually guarantees the existence of
life elsewhere in our galaxy since even highly improbable events, such as someone correctly
picking all of the numbers in a lottery, can be probable if there are enough tries. As we will see
later, there are many factors that must be weighed before we can make any reliable conclusions.

f
s
is the fraction of stars that are suitable for life.
This factor represents the fraction of stars that are suitable suns for planetary systems.
Some stars must be rejected because they are too small (such as type M stars) and others because
they are too short-lived (such as stars of type O and B). Using these criteria, only about 10% of
stars would be classified as suitable for life.

f
p
is the fraction of suitable stars with planetary systems.
Only suitable stars that contain planetary systems need to be considered, since life
certainly requires planets for life to grow on. Hubble telescope observations of the Orion nebula
has been able to see stars with proto-planetary disks that will eventually condense into planets.
Very recently, there has been confirmed detection of a few actual planets (giant Jupiter-like gas
planets) around other nearby stars and the even the detection of a star in the middle of planet
formation. Because of these discoveries in conjunction with the modeling of planet formation
using modern high-speed computers, there is a growing consensus that planetary systems can
form relatively easily. It was estimated that about half of all stars might contain planetary
systems.



5
n
e
is the number of planets in a solar system with an environment suitable for life.
It is generally agreed that any conceivable life form must have liquid water. While water
is abundant in the galaxy, liquid water is scarce. We know that planets that are too close to the
sun (e.g. Mercury and Venus) are too hot to maintain liquid water and planets to far from the sun
(e.g. Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) are so cold that any water would be frozen.
33
Between these two
extremes is the Continuously Habitable Zone (a.k.a. the Goldilocks zone) where the planet is
at just the right distance from the star to maintain liquid water. For our solar system, typically
only the Earth is viewed as being in the Goldilocks zone (n
e
1), however, some would also
consider Mars and Venus as being included in this zone (n
e
3).

f
l
is the fraction of suitable planets containing living organisms.
Given a planet that is kept at the right temperature for liquid water and contains simple
organic molecules, it is believed by SETI enthusiasts that life will spontaneously arise. The
discovery of organic molecules in space is considered as evidence that organic molecules are
sufficiently abundant and hence is taken as an evidence for a large value of f
l
. Since life appears
suddenly and early on Earth under very harsh conditions, then perhaps life can form elsewhere
under similarly harsh conditions. The discovery of extremophiles (bacteria capable of living
under extremely conditions) living in salt-saturated water, under high temperatures and
pressures, and even in solid ice suggest to many that life can exist in many more places than
originally believed. The value of f
l
is unknown but SETI enthusiasts generally consider it to be
very significant, 50% or higher.

f
i
is the fraction of planets containing intelligent living organisms.
If any planet other than our own contains life, there is no guarantee that any of the
organisms will posses sufficient intelligence to communicate with us. (Since most animals and
even some insects can display signs of rudimentary intelligence in their behavior, we must
restrict our use of the term intelligence here to mean the ability to comprehend and
communicate.) Some believe that intelligence is a natural consequence of evolution and so f
i

could be as high as 20%-100%. Again, this value is unknown and is very speculative.

f
c
is the fraction of planets containing intelligent beings capable of communicating.
The term communicating here refers to the ability to send signals to other solar
systems. Almost certainly, the communication would be in the form of electromagnetic
radiation. A civilization with advanced electronics (or similar technology) would almost
certainly emit detectable signals (such as radio and TV broadcasts) even if they were not
intentionally trying to broadcast a message. Cocconi and Morrison
1
proposed radio waves as the
best place to search for extraterrestrial signals but SETI astronomers are also looking in the
microwave and even the optical portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The value of f
c
is
unknown but is believed by SETI proponents to be very high (perhaps 20%-50%).

L is the lifetime of communicating civilizations.
Even if intelligent beings with the ability to communicate with us were to evolve
elsewhere in the galaxy, there may only be a brief window of opportunity for us to make contact
with them. Some note that for life here on Earth, development of nuclear weapons occurred
concurrently with the availability to send and receive extraterrestrial signals. This suggests that
advanced civilizations might destroy themselves before they could make contact with other
civilizations. Severe environmental pollution and large asteroidal collisions are additional
dangers that could devastate an advanced civilization to the point that they were no longer able to


6
communicate. As such, pessimists might argue for a small value of L, perhaps only a few
hundred years. However, Carl Sagan, Frank Drake, and most SETI proponents opt for a very
optimistic view that most advanced beings will manage to avoid destroying themselves and
might last thousands or even millions of years. Some even take this one step farther and suggest
communicating civilizations that do survive self-destruction might be able to guide less advanced
civilizations and help them avoid self-destruction.
34
In the absence of any real information about
other beings, the best we can do is set a minimum value for L of about 60 years, the length of
time that we have had the technology to communicate with extraterrestrials.


SETI Estimates for Communicating Civilizations:
Some of the earliest estimates of the number of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations
come from Frank Drakes 1965 paper and a book by Iosef Shklovskii and Carl Sagan in 1966.
Their optimistic appraisal has diminished little over the last 40 years as is illustrated by the
comparison to estimates taken from three contemporary web sites.

Frank Drake
35
Carl Sagan
36
Active Mind
37
SEDS
38
Life in the Universe
39
R
*
1 10 10 20 3-5
f
s
10% 10%
f
p
50% 100% 20% 50% 20%
n
e
2-3 1 3-5 1 .05-.5
f
l
100% 100% 50% 50% 100%
f
i
100% 10% 20% 100% ?
f
c
100% 10% 10-20% 50% .1%-1%
L 1,000-10,000 10,000,000 10,000 > 60 10,000-100,000
N 1,000-15,000 1,000,000 600-2,000 > 15 ?


Fermis Paradox: So Where Are They?
Given the bold assertion by SETI proponents that there might be 10,000 or even a million
advanced civilizations in our galaxy alone, how can we test this claim? The ultimate test would
be to travel to each and every possible solar system and look for life. This is impossible now and
will remain so for the foreseeable future. The next obvious test is to scan the heavens in hopes of
intercepting a broadcast from one of these civilizations, which is the cardinal idea behind the
SETI program. For the last 40 years, SETI has been listening but has failed to confirm even one
genuine extraterrestrial signal.
40, , , , 41 42 43 44
The central drawback to the SETI search is that it is
effectively unfalsifiable, that is, a failure to detect extraterrestrial signals is never sufficient to
rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations. For the most part, SETI astronomers
remain as upbeat about the prospects of finding signals as they were 40 years ago despite a
failure to produce any evidence.
In the summer of 1950, Nobel physicist Enrico Fermi came up with a simple yet
remarkable challenge to the belief that the universe is full of advanced beings. On the way to
lunch at Los Alamos National Labs, Fermi, Edward Teller, Herbert York, and Emil Konopinski
were talking about the possibility of flying saucers, faster-than-light travel, and extraterrestrial
beings. During the lunch-time conversation with his three friends, Fermi interjected the
question, Where is everybody?
45
Everyone immediately understood that the everybody
referred to in the prior conversation about extraterrestrial beings. Fermi had reasoned that if
extraterrestrial civilizations were as abundant as expected, then many of them would have


7
technology far beyond our own and would have spread out from their original solar system by
colonizing other planets. Eventually, even the distant colonies would eventually feel the
pressure to spread out to even more distant solar systems. The first such civilization to colonize
the stars would have the advantage of facing no opposition to their expansion. Thus, given some
reasonable assumptions, this would lead to an exponential expansion that would eventually
colonize the entire galaxy within a few million years, which is a cosmically brief period of
time.
46,47
This immediately leads to Fermis paradox if extraterrestrial civilizations are
abundant in our galaxy then they (or their robotic probes) should have reached Earth by now.
Thus, if there is no evidence that we have been visited, we should logically conclude that
advanced extraterrestrials are rare or non-existent. Looking around, we see absolutely no
evidence that Earth or our solar system has been visited. Our asteroid belt would be a prime
target for extraterrestrials to come and mine large quantities of valuable metals (such as nickel
and iron), yet it remains untouched and our solar system remains in totally pristine condition.
Nor have UFO investigators confirmed even one extraterrestrial visit. Given the existing
evidence, Fermis paradox leads us to believe that we might be alone in the galaxy and hence
that at least some of SETIs assumptions are wrong.
While Fermis question has drawn much criticism, it has yet to receive an adequate
answer in the last 50 years. Some have argued that traveling to other stars would remain too
expensive or too difficult and hence that aliens would simply never reach much beyond their
own solar system. Others have argued that advanced creatures are likely to destroy themselves
or be destroyed by a large asteroidal bombardment before they can spread out to other solar
systems. And still others suggest that aliens may have already visited Earth but either we
havent noticed them or they are cleverly keeping themselves hidden. All of these solutions to
Fermis paradox seem improbable and contrived. Even worse, such arguments would have to
apply equally to all extra-terrestrial civilizations, since if even one had the capacity of spreading
through the galaxy, it would have already reaching us.
45,48
So, Fermis argument against the
prevalence of extraterrestrial civilizations remains strong even after 50 years.


Discovery of Extra-solar Planets The Failure of the Copernican Principle
The Copernican principle holds that there is nothing special about our solar system and
hence other stars in our galaxy should have their own solar systems that resemble our own. Our
own solar system contains four small inner rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars),
two gas giant planets (Saturn and Jupiter), and three ice planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto).
49

SETI expectations were built on the assumption that most other solar systems should be veritable
carbon copies our own. As such, the discovery and characterization of extra-solar planets was
expected to be the crowning vindication of the hopes and expectations of SETI astronomers. The
first official detection of an extra-solar planet came in October 1995 with the detection of a
Jupiter-sized object orbiting about the star 51 Pegasi about 50 light years away from us. This
confirmed for the first time that planets do indeed exist outside our solar system. Since that time,
over 100 planets have been discovered orbiting other stars.
50,51
Now that we have a large enough
sample of planets to analyze, what can we learn from them?
52,53
1) Newly discovered solar systems are not like our own. Based on the Copernican
principle, astronomers expected other solar systems should be much like our own. However,
even a quick survey of the newly discovered solar systems shows that all of them differ radically
from our own. So different are these solar systems from anything predicted that it begs the
question, Who ordered that?
54
The extra-solar planets can be split into three categories. (a)
Large Jupiter-like gas giant planets that orbit extremely close to their star, such as the planet near


8
51 pegasi. Such a massive planet would eject, destroy, or prevent from forming small rocky
planets that are necessary for life. (b) Large Jupiter-like gas giant planets that orbit at near the
correct distance but have highly eccentric orbits. Eccentric means that the planets orbit in an
elliptical (rather than near circular) pattern. Because of their mass, Jupiter-like planets with
eccentric orbits would disrupt the orbit of smaller inner planets. (c) Solar systems containing no
giant gas planets. Through gravitational lensing,
55
astronomers were able to detect one small
planet (with a mass between that of Earth and Neptune) near the star MACHO 98-BLG-35.
56

This planetary system is missing a large Jupiter-like planet necessary to protect the smaller
planet from cometary bombardment. In all of these cases, there is no hope for finding any form
of advanced life.
2) Gas giant planets are rare. Our Jupiter acts a cosmic shield protecting Earth by either
deflecting or absorbing (as in the case of the recent Shoemaker-Levy collision) comets and
asteroids that wander into the solar system.
57,58
Without Jupiter, Earth would have been
bombarded 1,000 times more often than we had been. Such an increased bombardment would
regularly wipe out any advanced life. Prior to the discovery of the first extra-solar planet,
astronomer George Wetherill predicted that most young solar-type stars lose the gas in their
proto-planetary disks before gas giant planets (like Jupiter and Saturn) can form.
59, , 60 61
Based on
spectroscopic analysis of 20 young stars, only one retained enough gases to form gas giant
planets. Wetherill also noted that a search of two dozen solar-type stars had failed to find any
planets. Based on current discoveries, only about 6% of solar-type stars can be expected to have
giant planets, which is consistent with Wetherills theoretical predictions.
62
3) Planets require lots of metals. Astronomers are finding that planets only form around
metal-rich stars. To astronomers, metals refers to any element heavier than helium. Since
the big bang produced only hydrogen and helium, metals can only be produced later in the
history of the universe from the nuclear furnaces of stars. As such, the concentration of metals in
a forming solar system is critically dependent upon its having formed upon the metal enriched
ashes of two previous generations of stars. Since planets are built up almost entirely of metals, it
is not surprising that a certain minimum amount of metals are required to have planets. Our own
sun is very rare because it is so metal-rich (with metals making up about 2% of the solar mass)
compared to stellar neighbors of roughly the same age and type. Almost all of the extra-solar
planets discovered so far orbit very metal-rich stars. While the exact relationship between metals
and planet formation is still unknown, the requirement for metals certainly reduces the number of
possible planetary systems.
4) Drifting gas giant planets. A probe dropped into Jupiters atmosphere showed that the
planet still contained high levels of argon, krypton, and xenon. The only way to explain the
presence of these noble gases is that the planet formed under very cold conditions (below
-406 F). These conditions only exist outside the orbit of Pluto, which means that Jupiter must
have formed there and later drifted inward to its current position.
63
This drift has to be fine-
tuned, since if it drifted to close to the sun, it would destroy the inner planets. If it didnt drift in
far enough, it would not have protected our planet from cometary bombardment. If it drifted the
right distance but did not maintain a circular orbit, it would disrupt the inner planets.
64
In nearly
all of the 100 extra-solar planets, these large gas giant planets either drifted in very close to their
star or ended up with very eccentric (non-circular) orbits.
65


Galactic Habitability - Dangerous Stellar Neighborhoods
Astronomers have discovered that our own galaxy is full of dangers that are capable of


9
disrupting or destroying possible life sites. Where as Drake and Sagan confidently assumed that
only the nature of the star and its planets were relevant to the question of habitability, we are
now forced to recognize that a stars stellar neighborhood and its position in the galaxy are no
less critical. To quote a famous real estate adage, its all about location, location, location.
Several aspects about a star and its relationship to its parent galaxy must be considered.
1) Galactic dangers. While astronomers have long known about dangers to solar systems
caused by nearby objects, they are now considering hazards posed by even some very distant
objects. One such danger comes from supernovae. A supernova is a tremendous explosion that
occurs when a massive star runs out of fuel and explodes, showering everything around it with
high-energy particles and deadly gamma-ray radiation. For a brief time, a supernova can shine
brighter than 100 billion suns! A nearby supernova would sterilize a planet and alter its
atmosphere but even more distant supernovae can put out enough to cause mass extinctions. A
new type of galactic danger, gamma-ray bursts, poses an even greater threat than supernovae.
Gamma-ray bursts occur when ultramassive stars run out of fuel and collapse into a black hole.
For a brief moment, a gamma-ray burst event can radiate brighter than 10 billion billion suns (i.e.
100 million times that of a supernova) and cause damage to solar systems 1,000 (or even 10,000)
light years away.
66
Very distant gamma-ray bursts may have been responsible for some large-
scale extinction events on the earth.
67
2) Galactic habitable zone. The galactic habitable zone represents another of Goldilocks
just right compromises. Stars located too far from the center of the galaxy will lack sufficient
material for the formation of rocky planets. For stars that are located too close to the center of
the galaxy, the density of stars would be so large there would be a high probability of disruption
caused by stellar neighbors that come too close. In addition, stars close to the center would also
be subject to large amounts of radiation from the galaxys core.
3) Dangerous galactic spiral arms. Astronomer William Keel has shown that it is
important for a habitable planet stay out of the galactic spiral arms.
68
The spiral arms contain a
much higher density of stars such that the gravity from nearby stars would likely pull planets out
of their habitable zone. In addition, the spiral arms contain many supergiant stars. Supergiant
stars are extremely massive and luminous stars that pump out so much radiation that they would
damage the atmosphere of planets around neighboring stars. Dust in the galaxy resides primarily
in solar arms and acts as a blanket shielding stars outside the spiral arms from this dangerous
radiation. When supergiant stars collapse, they become supernovae and become an even greater
threat to nearby stars.
4) Staying between galactic spiral arms. Our solar system resides safely between two
galactic spiral arms remaining safe from both. However, it is not enough to simply reside
between spiral arms but to do so for most of the lifetime of the solar system. This will only
happen if the parent star is orbiting the center of the galaxy at the same rate as the spiral arms. If
the star is revolving too fast or too slow around the galactic core, it will eventually be swept into
either of the spiral arms where it will be subjected to gravitational disturbances and radiation
from supergiant stars. Only stars, such as our own, that reside near the galactic corotation
distance will remain in sync with the spiral arms and be able to avoid being swept into them.
69
5) Z-axis bounce. As a star orbits around the center of the galaxy, its motion may take it
above or below the plane of the galaxy. Stars for which this motion is too large in either
direction will be hit by large doses of radiation coming from the galactic core. Only stars that
remain close to the plane of the galaxy will be protected from this harmful radiation.



10

Reassessing the Drake Equation
The discovery of extra-solar planets as well as newer models of solar system formation
have shattered the assumption that our solar system is the cosmic norm. A plethora of other
discoveries about our own solar system are showing just how many things had to be just right
in order for Earth to be habitable. A comprehensive listing of these factors is included in Fine-
Tuning for Life on Earth on page 22. The best way to evaluate the implications of these new
discoveries is to reevaluate each term of the Drake Equation in light of this flood of new data.

Just what makes a star suitable reassessing f
s
For a planet to even have a chance of being habitable, it must orbit a suitable star. In
his original work, Drake realized that certain types of stars would be too extreme to keep even
one of its planets at the right temperature to maintain liquid water. Drake, however, did not go
far enough in considering other stellar properties that might render a star unsuitable. For the
last 40 years, astronomers have been cataloguing many additional properties of a star that affect
its ability to support a habitable planet. Only a few prominent criteria are listed here.
(1) Roughly half of all known stars are binary stars (pairs of stars that orbit each other). The
idea of a planet having multiple suns is very romantic idea (look at the planet Tantoine in the
movie Star Wars) but is unsuited for the presence of life. Any planets in orbit around binary
stars would have very unstable orbits at best, which would subject the planet to large temperature
oscillations.
(2) Of non-binary stars, we can safely rule out non-main sequence stars, such as white dwarf
stars (too cold), red giants (too hot), and neutron stars (too violent). For main sequence stars, the
stars life time and hence its suitability is determined by its mass. Large stars (at least 65%
larger than our sun) will use up their nuclear fuel so fast that they would burn out too rapidly.
Smaller stars (at least 40% smaller than our sun) would have a Goldilocks zone that would be
too small. That is, the region around the star that maintains the planet at the right temperature is
so close to the star that it subjects the planet to tidal forces that would disrupt the rotational
period of the planet. Such a disruption would result in one side of the planet always facing its
sun, which would overheat while the opposite side would freeze. Of all known star types, only
bachelor G2 stars (a class of yellow stars like our own) are likely candidates for life. Only these
stars have the right size, brightness, and long-term stability to considered suitable for life.
(3) Only third generation stars have enough heavy elements to allow the formation of rocky
planets. The earliest stars to form started with only hydrogen and helium from the big bang. As
these first generations die in supernovae explosions, they produce and expel heavier elements.
The second generation stars, drawing on the ashes of first generation stars, still lack the elements
to make rocky planets needed for life. Only after this second generation of stars die in
supernovae are there enough heavy elements for the third generation of stars to have rocky
planets. (Fourth generation stars do exist but these are rare.)
(4) In addition to the stars mass, the stars age is also a factor to consider. If the star is
either too young or too old, the luminosity (brightness) of the star will vary too much. Large
fluctuations in the stars luminosity would result in runaway freezing or runaway heating of the
planets. Such fluctuations would be disastrous to possible life forms.

Just how common are planets? - reassessing f
p
Drake, Sagan, and other SETI astronomers assumed that about half of all stars should


11
have planets based on the existing models of their day. New evidence is showing that planet
formation is much less frequent than had been expected. The Hubble Space Telescope was used
to look for planets in the globular cluster of stars
70
called 47 Tucanae. Based on existing
expectations, they should have found 17 planets but instead found zero.
71
Based on this new
evidence, planet formation is at least 100 times less common than was anticipated (f
p
.1%).

Just what makes a planet suitable for life reassessing n
e
Again, we encounter the notion of being suitable. Just what is suitable for life? The
very favorable value of n
e
used by SETI enthusiasts, is based on assuming that there is just one
criterion: the planet must be in the Goldilocks zone so that it can support liquid water. There
are, however, many other factors about the solar system as well as the planet itself that must be
properly balanced for life to be possible. Analysis of the recently discovered solar systems
located around other stars show that favorable solar systems are certainly not guaranteed. Only a
few prominent criteria are listed here.
1) Just right Jupiter. Our Jupiter acts a cosmic shield protecting Earth from deadly
bombardment that would exterminate life. A solar system not having a large Jupiter-like gas
giant would subject inner planets frequent deadly bombardment. However, having a large gas
giant planet is not enough, because it must also have a near-circular orbit, have the right mass,
and must orbit the right distance away from the star. If not, these gas giants would wreak havoc
with the delicate inner planets eliminating any possibility of life. The discovery of extra-solar
planets have confirmed that just right Jupiters are not guaranteed or even likely.
2) Just right Moon. Our moon is more than just a beautiful light to fill the nightit is a
critical component to maintaining life on this planet.
72,73
The moon plays a key role in
stabilizing the obliquity (tilt of the rotation axis relative to the orbital plane) of the Earth.
Without the moon, the Earths tilt would be unstable, causing destructive climatic changes on
Earth. What makes the moon so unusual is that it is quite large relative to the mass of the Earth.
The moons large mass means that our moon is more like a second planet than a moon. Current
models suggest that our moon formed when a Mars sized boulder struck the Earth at an angle
kicking up a lot of debris that would eventually coalesce in the moon. Such a collision requires a
high degree of fine-tuning! A direct collision would have been disastrous and a glancing blow
would not have given rise to the moon. (This moon forming impact may also explain why we do
not have a thick CO
2
atmosphere like Venus that would have kept the Earth too hot for liquid
water and life.)
3) Just right Planet. Simply having a planet the right distance from the star is not
enough for a planet to be habitable. A careful study of our own planet has revealed that there are
at least 20 different aspects of our planet that must be carefully balanced for there to be life and
this list is growing every year! These parameters include plate tectonics, orbital eccentricity,
surface gravity, magnetic field, and the thickness of the crust to name a few. Habitability and
hence life are critically dependent upon all of these things balanced between opposing extremes
and the failure of a planet to stay within these narrow boundaries on even one parameter would
prevent or exterminate life on that planet. A more comprehensive list of parameters is given in
Fine-Tuning for Life on Earth on page 22.

The question of the origin of life reassessing f
l
Currently, only our planet is known to harbor life and there is still much debate about
how life began here. SETI proponents assume that since life appears very early in Earths
history, life arises easily, spontaneously, and without help from God. Such optimistic


12
speculation is the basis of the SETI philosophy and is the whole motivation behind the search for
life elsewhere in the universe. Advances in biochemistry and genetics show in increasing detail
the incredible degree of complexity in even the simplest organism. Information theory applied to
the origin of life question shows us that not even the simplest organism will form by purely
natural processes, even given the long periods of time involved. A detailed discussion of this
subject is beyond the scope of this paper.
74, , , , , 75 76 77 78 79
Given the evidence, we have to conclude
that f
l
is zero!

Is intelligence guaranteed? reassessing f
i
It has long been assumed that intelligence is guaranteed by evolution and hence that f
i

should be large. In more recent times, there have been a number of challenges to this
assumption. One argument for a small value for f
i
comes from the Carters dilemma. Brandon
Carter noticed that while microorganisms show up very early in the fossil record, intelligent life
(namely us) doesnt show up until very late in the history of our planet.
80
That is, intelligent life
did not appear until nearly half the available time (the lifetime of our sun) was gone. So, even if
intelligent life was guaranteed to evolve (and of course there is no such guarantee), there is no
guarantee that it would appear soon enough before being wiped out by its dying sun or by other
catastrophes.
81,82
Not only would intelligent life have to occur before the death of its parent sun, it would
have to be kept sufficiently safe from various disasters over astronomical periods of time. There
are many disasters that could halt or even destroy life on a planet. Recent work on Mars,
suggests that our planetary neighbor might have been much more habitable than it is now and
may even have had liquid water. Any life that might have existed (except possibly microbes)
would have been destroyed by whatever forces brought about this catastrophic change in Mars
climate.
83
Today, Mars is cold, barren and unfit for life.

Our Just Right Galaxy
Over the last 40 years, we have discovered that a great number of things have to be just
right in our solar system in order to have life on Earth. The discovery of planets orbiting other
stars underscores this point by showing that habitable solar systems are certainly not guaranteed.
We are now faced with the realization that even given the vastness of our galaxy, the probability
of having even one other planet forming by natural processes alone with the necessary conditions
to support advanced life is negligible. Given the improbability of having even one other
habitable planet in our galaxy, the quest for extraterrestrial beings will be forced to look outside
our own galaxy.
According to the Copernican principle, most galaxies should be like our own. Since our
galaxy contains at least one intelligent civilization (namely us) and there are an estimated 10
billion galaxies in our universe, one might expect that there should be at least 10 billion
advanced civilizations in our universe. (If we used SETIs optimistic estimates instead this
would skyrocket to a staggering trillion or even a quadrillion intelligent civilizations in the
universe.) Recent findings by astrophysicists are showing the Copernican principle fails even for
galaxies so that the vast number of galaxies does little to bolster the idea of extra-terrestrial
civilizations. For example, only spiral galaxies like our own can support star formation long
enough to have very metal-rich stars that are capable of having rocky planets. Similarly,
galaxies that are located close to other galaxies are unsuitable because the gravity of nearby
companions would disrupt solar systems. A galaxy capable of supporting habitable planets must
be a middle-aged, medium-sized, spiral galaxy with sustained star formation located in a safe
cosmic neighborhood. Using only five of these galactic parameters, we can rule out 99.999%


13
of all galaxies as possible candidates for having habitable solar systems. Given current trends, it
is likely that the number of galactic fine-tuning parameters will only increase, not decrease. We
indeed reside in a very privileged portion of the universe. (For more details see Fine-Tuning for
Life on Earth on page 22.)


The Design Inference
Astronomers now recognize that our sun, planet, and even our galaxy had to have a lot of
things just right in order for us to be here. For example, if the distance from Earth to the sun
were just slightly larger or smaller than the current value, there would be a catastrophic runaway
freezing or heating that would exterminate or prevent life on our planet. This quality of being
just right or fine-tuned is sometimes referred to as design because of the comparison with
humanly designed systems. For example, the gears in a mechanical watch must be precisely the
right size in order to connect with other gears. In addition to that, the gear sizes must also be
precisely chosen for the watch to correctly measure time. Even small changes in the components
of the watch would cause the watch to fail or keep the wrong time. We explain the correct
functioning of a watch by recognizing that the watch was designed by an intelligent being (the
watchmaker). If our solar system and planet have the property of being fine-tuned like a
watch, then we may infer that if the watch needs a designer, then so must our solar system and
planet. This is known as the design inference and stands in direct opposition to the Copernican
principle.
During the inception of SETI and the Drake equation in the 1960s, astronomers assumed
that a solar system only had to get a two things right (i.e. the right star type and stable planets) in
order for there to be a suitably earth-like habit for life.
84
By 1970 when SETI was just a decade
old, the number of design parameters (things that have to be just right) jumped from just 2 to 8.
Each new design parameter reduced the predicted number of possible life sites in our universe.
By 1980 this number rose to 23, by 1990 it was up to 32 parameters, by 1995 it had reach 41 and
in 2001 it reached 128. Currently, there are at least 153 design parameters and this list of
parameters continues to grow with no apparent end in sight.
85
Given these design parameters,
we can conservatively estimate that even given the entire universe with 10 billion galaxies each
containing 100 billion stars and planets, the probability of having even one solar system form by
chance that has the necessary properties for life is less than 1 chance in 10
172
! (See Probabilities
for Life on Earth on page 32.) Clearly then, the Earth cannot simply be a fortuitous accident
but is the product of design by a caring Designer.
For the most part, SETI proponents have simply chosen to ignore this growing list of
requirements for habitability. Except for the addition of the term, f
s
, the Drake Equation has
remained the same, effectively refusing to recognize the advances and discoveries of the last 40
years. Similarly, estimates of the number of advanced civilizations have remained almost
constant, although modern estimates are a bit more conservative. (See SETI Estimates for
Communicating Civilizations above.) SETI believers who have commented on these design
requirements, typically dismiss them as mere quirks or eccentricities of our own solar system and
are not really essential requirements for habitability.
86
Sadly, outside of astronomy, most of
these design parameters are not well known, and when they are presented, typically only a few
are mentioned. The popular press has done little to challenge the popular SETI notions or
educate the public about this growing body of evidence for design.




14
Rare Earth
After decades of mounting evidence, only now are other scientists beginning to
reevaluate their expectations for life elsewhere in the universe. Using only eight criteria (design
parameters) for the existence of intelligent life on other planets, Robert Naeye, concludes that we
likely to be alone in the galaxy. He states:
Recent studies in a variety of fields suggest that life must pass through a
series of bottlenecks on the road to intelligence. On Earth, a long sequence of
improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as
if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the
prevailing belief, maybe we are special. Maybe humanity stands alone on a fertile
island in the largely sterile waters of the galactic ocean.
87
It should be recognized, Naeye comes to this conclusion based on existing evidence even though
he sincerely hopes that SETI will eventually prove him wrong by detecting life.
87
If only eight
design parameters are enough to convince him that we are likely alone in the galaxy, we can only
wonder what conclusions he would make if he considered all 153 design parameters!
Astrobiologists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee are also among a growing number of
scientists who are challenging the prevailing view that advanced life is common in the universe.
Based on their own compilation of requirements for habitable planets, they conclude that
intelligent life is exceedingly rare in the universe, even though they start from the assumption
that life can arise spontaneously.
88
In the introduction to their book Rare Earth, they state:
In this book, we will argue that not only intelligent life, but even the
simplest of animal life, is exceedingly rare in our galaxy and in the Universe. We
are not saying that life is rareonly that animal life is We combine these two
predictions of the commonness of simple life and the rarity of complex life into
what we will call the Rare Earth Hypothesis. (Emphasis theirs.)
89
After surveying what the last 40 years of astronomy has indicated about the possibility of
extraterrestrial life sites, they conclude their findings by giving a revised version of the Drake
Equation that includes additional factors to incorporate a few of these new findings. They
conclude:
Many new factors will be known, and the list of variables involved will
undoubtedly be amended. But it is our contention that any strong signal can be
perceived when only sparse data is available. To us, the signal is so strong even
at this time, it appears that Earth indeed may be extraordinarily rare. (Emphasis
mine.)
90
It then appears that the Copernican revolution has come full circle. So, while we are clearly not
at the geometrical center of the universe, evidence for design is showing that we are indeed very
special.


Nobody Here But Us Earthlings
University of Washington astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez is frequently asked, Are we
alone? In his article, Nobody Here But Us Earthlings, he states that:
My answer to the question [Are we alone?] almost always catches
people off guard: Very likely yes, we are alone. When one looks at the
astronomical data with an open mind, it becomes quite obvious why we have not


15
found any evidence of extraterrestrial life.
91
Contrary to the popular assertions of Carl Sagan, Frank Drake, SETI, and others, we are likely to
be alone in the entire universe, not just in our galaxy. Multiple lines of evidence are converging
to support this conclusion. To summarize what we have found:
1) Fermis Paradox. The complete lack of any credible evidence for extraterrestrials
having already visited our solar system argues that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations
are rare or non-existent.
2) Failure to Detect Any Signals. After 40 years of searching, we have not found even a
single blip from an extraterrestrial civilization. While this doesnt completely eliminate
the possibility of advanced beings, it certainly does put strong limits on their existence
and level of technology.
3) Discovery of Extra-Solar Planets. Both Frank Drake and Carl Sagan confidently
assumed that other solar systems should resemble our own. The newly discovered
planets have completely turned this assumption on its head. None of these solar systems
are even remotely hospitable. This is perhaps the strongest experimental evidence
against SETI claims.
4) Dangerous Stellar Neighborhood. It is not enough to have the right star and planet in
order to have a habitable planet. A star must be located in just the right portion of the
galaxy where they can be protected from radiation and gravitational disruption from stars
in its local neighborhood for the lifetime of the planet. Supernovae and gamma-ray
bursts represent violent endings to massive stars that pump out unimaginable amounts of
energy capable of destroying life and disrupting planetary atmospheres out to hundreds or
even thousands of light years.
5) Failure of the Copernican Principle. When SETI was born, astronomers assumed that
a solar system only had to have two things right in order to have a habitable planet and so
habitable planets should be plentiful. Scientists now recognize that a great number of
attributes must fall within narrow limits to even have a chance of being hospitable.
6) Failure of Naturalistic Explanations for the Origin of Life. A naturalistic origin of
life is prerequisite for life on other planets. In Darwins time, cells appeared to be little
more than bags of protoplasm, so the origin of life seemed like it should be very easy.
Now, scientists realize that even the simplest organism is more complicated and better
managed than even the finest human factories. The DNA of a single cell contains more
information than several sets of the Encyclopedia Britanica. Naturalistic theories fail to
account for this intricate design and information content.
7) Late Appearance of Advance Life (Carters Dilemma). While single celled organisms
appear very early in Earths history, advanced life appears very late. So, even if simple
organisms were to develop, there is no guarantee that advanced life would appear before
the death of its sun or other cosmic catastrophes.


Why Are We Here?
Under the SETI paradigm (Copernican principle), our existence is guaranteed without
Gods help simply by virtue of the billions of galaxies each containing billions of possible stars
and planets. However, given the enormous and growing body of evidence for design, we can
safely rule out the possibility of finding other habitable planets teeming with intelligent life.


16
(See Probabilities for Life on Earth on page 32.) Clearly the Earth cannot simply be a
fortuitous accident and thus, we are very likely alone in the universe. This gives us reason to
pause and reflect on the meaning of it all. At the end of his article, Nobody Here But Us
Earthlings, Guillermo Gonzalez concludes:
We should not be asking: Are we alone? We should be asking instead:
Why are we here?
92
The question of our existence used to be the domain of theology alone but now science is adding
some new details to the story. Modern astronomy is testifying to the fact that our galaxy, our
solar system, and our planet reflect the careful craftsmanship of a Designer rather than the
random fortune of the Copernican Principle. Long ago, King David looked up at the heavens
and concluded, The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his
hands.
93
If only King David could have seen the universe as we see it today.


Further Reference:
M. J. Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Touchstone, New
York 1996.
G. Gonzalez, Rare Sun, Facts For Faith (Q2 2002), p. 14-21.
F. Heeren, Exoplanets, SETI, and the Likelihood of Contact, Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1999, p.
20-27, 57-62.
B. Nemati, The Search for Life on Other Planets, Facts For Faith (Q4 2000), p. 22-31.
H. Ross, The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing Co., Orange, CA 1989.
--, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3
rd
Ed., NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 2001.
--, Exotic Life Sites: The Feasibility of Far-Out Habitats, Facts For Faith (Q4 2001),
p. 20-25.
--, Search for Planets Draws a Blank, Facts For Faith (Q2 2001), p. 9.
H. Ross, K. Samples, and M. Clark, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men, NavPress, Colorado
Springs, CO 2002.
--, The RUFO Hypothesis, videotape, (available from Reasons To Believe,
http://www.reasons.org/).
H. Ross and G. Gonzalez, You Must Be Here, Facts For Faith (Q1 2000), p. 36-41.
S. Shostak, Getting in Touch with ETI, Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1999, p. 8-15, 54-56.
--, Listening for Life, Astronomy, October 1992, pp. 26-33.
--, When E.T. Calls Us, Astronomy, September 1997, pp. 37-51.
C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Lifes Origin: Reassessing
Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, TX 1992.
P. Ward and D. Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe,
Copernicus, NY 2000.
D. Wilkinson, Alone in the Universe?, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 1997.


Magazine References:
Connections, Reasons To Believe newsletter (1999-current).
Downloadable versions available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/connections/
Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe quarterly newsletter (1986-1999).
Downloadable versions available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/
Facts For Faith, Reasons To Believe quarterly magazine (2000-2002).


17
Magazine may be purchased at http://www.factsforfaith.com/.
Selected downloadable articles available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/
Cosmic Pursuit, Day Star Ministries magazine (1997-1999).
Magazine may be purchased at http://www.daystarcom.org/resources/book_tape.htm


18
What about Weird Life? A Chemists Perspective


All our experience with life is ultimately based on earth life. If life were to
spontaneously arise on another planet, almost certainly it would not look anything like us. Sorry
to disappoint you Star Trek fans but aliens certainly wouldnt look humanoid with two eyes, two
ears, a mouth, and a nose as is seen in virtually every sci-fi movie, book, and TV series.
Likewise, such alien life forms probably wouldnt even be based on the familiar molecules that
make up earth lifeDNA, RNA, and proteins. (Although such life would still require molecules
to perform similar functions.) If alien life is not likely to resemble earth life, then perhaps we
can take that idea one step farther and consider that such life might not be carbon-based or not
even require liquid water. This idea of weird life (non-carbon/water based life forms) has
largely been the realm of science fiction, although some astrobiologists are seriously studying
these possibilities.
94
If life could indeed arise without the need for liquid water or carbon, then
perhaps such life might be able to thrive in environments radically different than our own. This
possibility could greatly increase the number of possible extraterrestrial life sites and increase the
odds of SETI discovering alien intelligences. Could there be a grain of science fact in this
science fiction?
While some still hold out hopes for alternative life chemistries, chemists have largely
ruled out this possibility for the last 40 years. But how can we be so certain about possible life
forms that we can only imagine? All conceivable life, even weird life, must be able to perform
certain basic functions to live. First, life must be able to take in matter and energy from its
environment and process it for food, motion, and reproduction. Likewise, life must be able to
replicate itself and so requires the ability to store its own blue prints. Using our modern
understanding of chemistry, we can rule out systems that do not have adequate versatility to
support these essential functions.
All conceivable forms of life require complex chemicals reactions and a liquid state is the
ideal environment for such reactions. Liquids can dissolve both gasses and solids, thus allowing
all three phases to participate in reactions and sustain a wide variety of chemical environments.
In a gaseous environment, molecules lie too far apart limiting the ability to store information in
complex molecules needed for life. In a solid state, molecules are locked in place greatly
slowing the ability to synthesize compounds, transfer information, and reproduce. Even if life
were to somehow arise based on a solid rather than a liquid matrix, its evolution would be so
slow that it wouldnt develop advanced life before the death of its parent sun.
95
(For
perspective, advance life on Earth appeared about half way through our suns stable lifetime. So
even slow down by a factor of two in lifes ability to adapt and evolve would mean that advanced
life would arrive too late, and solid-based life forms would likely be slower than liquid-based life
by many many orders of magnitude.)
Of course, not all liquids are created equal. Water (H
2
O) stands alone in its ability to
serve as a host environment for life chemistries.
95
Waters unusual bent shape, with its three
atoms forming a 104.5 angle, combined with its high degree of polarity
96
gives water a large
permanent dipole moment. This gives water the ability to dissolve more substances and in
greater quantities than any other liquid, and so is known as the universal solvent. Solubility is
critical for the transport of nutrients and waste material. In addition, solubility allows all of the
molecules for life chemistry to be available in solution to quickly carry out needed reactions.
Water isnt simply passive but plays an active role in many different reactions. Its high dielectric
constant and large dipole moment help stabilize many reactive intermediates allowing certain
reactions. Neutral water can also be easily split into two ions (H
+
and OH
-
), which is critical in a


19
lot of energy producing reactions, such as photosynthesis. These are but a few of waters
chemical and physical properties that are vital for life.
97
When water is compared to other
related substances, we see that water ranks highest or second highest in at least ten of these
important properties.
98,99
Only ammonia (NH
3
) comes close to rivaling water. Yet it is 1/5
th
as polar and cannot
match waters versatility. Also, ammonia is much more reactive and volatile than water and so
would not be as abundant or ubiquitous as liquid water. Other suggested replacements for water
include methane (CH
4
), hydrogen sulfide (H
2
S), carbon dioxide (CO
2
), hydrogen fluoride (HF)
and sulfur dioxide (SO
2
). All of these are less than 1/10
th
as polar as water and do not share
many of waters anomalous properties.
97

Just as life requires water, it also requires carbon. In 1961, physicist Robert Dicke
argued, It is well known that carbon is required to make physicists.
100
His statement still
stands today because no other element can match the versatility of carbon. The field of organic
chemistry focuses exclusively on carbon compounds and their chemistry; yet it is richer and
more diverse than the chemistry of all other elements combined (the field of inorganic
chemistry). Carbon easily forms strong double and triple bonds as well as being able to form up
to four single bonds. This gives carbon the widest array of possibilities for forming chemical
compounds. Most important, however, is carbons ability to form indefinitely long chains.
Simple molecular units can be strung together in innumerable combinations to form very
complex molecules. It is these long complex molecules that provide the capacity to store large
amounts of complex biological information.
Silicon is by far the most commonly suggested alternative to carbon and is a popular
favorite in science fiction works. Its greatest value to SETI, however, is in its great abundance,
being available in more places and in far greater quantity than carbon. Silicon, for example,
makes up 28% of the Earths crust (second only to oxygen), while carbon represents only a trace
element (less than 1%). While, silicon shares carbons ability to form four single bonds, it lacks
carbons ability to make strong multiple bonds, greatly limiting its possible uses. By far, its
greatest weakness is its inability to form long chains needed to store life information, as it
becomes too unstable for sufficiently long chains. Boron is the only other significant challenger
to carbon. It has the opposite problem of silicon, having the ability to form strong multiple
bonds but generally forms no more than 3 (rather than 4 bonds). While the chemical flexibility
of boron has still not been completely explored, it suffers from being far less abundant than
carbon. The net result is that wherever boron is found, carbon will also be found, so even if
boron-based life were to arise, it would likely be beaten out by carbon-based life.



20


SETI Related Questions


Am I opposed to looking for extraterrestrials?
No. While I dont believe that SETI will ever detect signals from alien beings, Im never
opposed to genuine research. My opposition is to the propagation of SETI philosophy in the
guise of science. The public is regularly hammered in newspapers and on television with the
where there is water there is life myth and so the possible presence of liquid water on Mars or
Europa is given as evidence for extraterrestrial life. Articles sympathetic to the SETI belief in
extraterrestrials are given frequent and unchallenged support, while those who challenge these
assumptions receive little attention or are trivialized.
Not only am I not opposed to research on the possibility of extraterrestrial life, I
recognize that such research has been indirectly responsible for demonstrating just how special
our solar system genuinely is. SETI research has also led to improvements in signal processing
and telescope design as well as helping hunt for pulsars and mapping hydrogen gas in the galaxy.

Is Christianity opposed to the idea life on other planets?
No. The central focus of this paper is that scientific evidence rules out the possibility of
life and habitable planets by purely natural processes without Gods intervention. God certainly
could create life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, some Christians argue that Gods creative
nature suggests that He would create life elsewhere, while other Christians disagree. Ultimately,
the Bible is silent on this issue leaving room for debate and discussion among Christians.
101

If we are alone in the universe, then is the universe just a waste of space?
Many have argued that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would
be evidence against the existence of God. If, in fact, the opposite is true and the universe is a
vast barren desert with no advanced civilizations other than our own, what then should we
conclude? Ironically, some have interpreted this possibility as also being evidence against God.
For example, the movie Contact, based on the book by Carl Sagan, has the main character
expressing the thought that if there are no other intelligent beings in the universe, then the vast
universe is just a waste of space. Physicist Stephen Hawking likewise make a similar charge
declaring that it is very hard to believe that God would make so many useless stars if His intent
was just to make a home for man.
102
If God had created the universe for mankind, wouldnt God
only need to create one planet and one solar system? Astrophysics is now shedding light on this
dilemma and revealing that the vast universe is in fact a necessary part of Gods design and not a
waste. It turns out that the mass density of the universe is a sensitive catalyst for nuclear fusion.
Thus, if the mass density were any less, the universe would contain only hydrogen and helium.
If the mass density were any greater, the universe would only contain elements heavier than iron.
The carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen necessary for life are only possible in a universe with a
hundred billion trillion observable stars. The universe reveals that God loved man so much that
He was willing to create a hundred billion trillion stars just for our benefit.
103

What is the anthropic principle?
The term anthropic principle was coined in 1974 by British mathematician Brandon
Carter in the wake of growing evidence that our universe was not an accident but was in fact
finely tuned to allow for our existence.
104
In his own words, the anthropic principle expresses


21
0
the notion that although our situation is not necessarily central it is necessarily privileged to
some extent.
80
As we have already examined in the main body of this paper, our planet, sun,
and galaxy exhibit a high degree of fine-tuning. (See Fine-Tuning for Life on Earth on page
22.) This fine-tuning also extends to the very laws and constants of physics. In 1961,
astronomers acknowledged just two characteristics of the universe as fine-tuned to make
physical life possible.
10
The more obvious one was the ratio of the gravitational force constant
to the electromagnetic force constant. It cannot differ from its value by any more than one part in
10
40
(one part in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) without eliminating the possibility for life.
Today, the number of known cosmic characteristics recognized as fine-tuned for lifeany
conceivable kind of physical lifestands at thirty-eight.
105
Of these, the most sensitive is the
space energy density (the self-stretching property of the universe). Its value cannot vary by more
than one part in 10
120
and still allow for the kinds of stars and planets physical life requires.
106

An account of scientific evidence in support of the anthropic principle fills several books.
107
The
authors religious beliefs run the gamut from agnosticism to deism to theism, but virtually every
research astronomer alive today agrees that the universe manifests exquisite fine-tuning for
life.
108

109
While the anthropic principle is not directly relevant to the question of SETI since
other stars and planets share the same laws of physics, it is relevant to the design argument and
directly contradicts the Copernican Principle.

What if life is found on Mars?
For several decades now, there has been both implicit and explicit expectations about
possible implications of finding life (or its remains) on Mars. The logic goes like this: if life is
found on Mars, then this is proof positive that life can arise easily and naturally and hence life
must be common in the universe. Carl Sagan popularized this idea as far back as 1966.
28
In
other words, the public has been trained to accept that evidence for life on Mars would nullify all
of the evidences presented here in this paper and hence should greet such claims with
enthusiasm, not skepticism. This was clearly demonstrated with the report of the remnants of
life on Mars rock in 1996, as described earlier in this paper. Credit should be given to those bold
scientists who were willing to challenge popular belief and demonstrate that the fossils were
not the remnants of life.
In the debate over the proposed Mars rock finding, one point was completely ignored by
both sides: we will find the remnants of life of Mars! This may seem strange considering the
thesis of this paper, but it in fact does not contradict it. Just as rocks from Mars can be
transported to Earth, so Earth rocks can be transported to Mars. Also the solar wind can blow
hearty microorganisms to Mars and the rest of the solar system. In other words, we have plenty
of evidence that terrestrial microorganisms will contaminate other planets in our solar system.
Since all of our current probes and tests are not capable of distinguishing between terrestrial and
Martian life, we must guard against assuming that remains of life on Mars equals extraterrestrial
life evolving on Mars. This argument was in print at least 8 years before the Mars rock
debacle!
110,111



22
Fine-Tuning for Life on Earth


Remarkable fine-tuning must take place in order for life to exist on any planet in any
planetary system. Earth exists in the only known planetary system able to demonstrate all the
characteristics required for life to survive. The following essential characteristics for life show
Earths matchless fine-tuning within its parameters. (Reprinted from Lights in the Sky & Little
Green Men, Appendix A, pp. 171-184. A list of scientific references supporting these design
parameters is included at the end of the book.)


1. Galaxy cluster type.
If Earths galaxy cluster were too rich, galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt
the solar orbit.
If Earths galaxy cluster were too sparse, there would be insufficient infusion of gas
into the Milky Way to sustain star formation there for a long enough period of time.

2. Galaxy size.
If the Milky Way were too large, infusion of gas and stars would disrupt the suns
orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions.
If the Milky Way were too small, there would be insufficient infusion of gas to
sustain star formation for a long enough period of time.

3. Galaxy type.
If the Milky Way were too elliptical, star formation would have ceased before
sufficient heavy elements had built up for life chemistry.
If the Milky Way were too irregular, radiation exposure on occasion would be too
severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available.

4. Galaxy mass and distribution.
If too much of the Milky Ways mass resided in the central bulge, the Earth would be
exposed to too much radiation.
If too much of the Milky Ways mass resided in the spiral arms, the Earth would be
destabilized by gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms.

5. Galaxy location.
If the Milky Way were located too close to a rich galaxy cluster, the Earth would be
gravitationally disrupted.
If the Milky Way were located too close to a very large galaxy (or galaxies), the Earth
would be gravitationally disrupted.

6. Supernovae eruptions.
If supernovae had occurred too close, life on Earth would be exterminated by
radiation.
If supernovae had occurred too far away, there would not be enough heavy element
ashes for the formation of rocky planets like Earth.
If supernovae had occurred too infrequently, there would not be enough heavy
elements ashes for the formation of rocky planets.


23
If supernovae had occurred too frequently, life on Earth would be exterminated.
If supernovae had occurred too soon, there would not have been enough heavy
element ashes for the formation of rocky planets.
If supernovae had occurred too late, life on Earth would be exterminated by radiation.

7. White dwarf binaries.
If there were too few white dwarf binaries, there would be insufficient fluorine for
life chemistry.
If there were too many white dwarf binaries, planetary orbits would be disrupted by
stellar density and life on Earth would be exterminated.
If white dwarf binaries had appeared too soon, there would not be enough heavy
elements for efficient fluorine production.
If white dwarf binaries had appeared too late, fluorine would be made too late for
incorporation in Earths protoplanet.

8. Proximity of solar nebula to a supernovae eruption.
If the solar nebula were farther away, the Earth would have absorbed insufficient
heavy elements for life.
If the solar nebula were closer, the nebula would be blown apart.

9. Timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernovae eruption.
If the solar nebula had formed earlier, the nebula would have been blown apart.
If the solar nebula had formed later, the nebula would not have absorbed enough
heavy elements.

10. Number of stars in parent star birth aggregate.
If there were too few stars in the parent star birth aggregate, there would have been
insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula.
If there were too many stars in the parent star birth aggregate, planetary orbits would
be too radically disturbed.

11. Star formation history in planet star vicinity.
If there had been too much star formation going on in the vicinity of the sun,
planetary orbits would be too radically disturbed.

12. Birth date of the star-planetary system.
If the system had been born too early, the quantity of heavy elements would have
been too low for large, rocky planets like Earth to form.
If the system had been born too late, the sun would not yet have reached its stable
burning phase. Furthermore, the ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235, uranium-238,
and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be
sustained on Earth.

13. Planet star distance from center of galaxy.
If the sun were too far from the center of the galaxy, the quantity of heavy elements
would have been insufficient to make rocky planets like Earth. In addition, there
would be the wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for
appropriate planet core characteristics.


24
If the sun were too close to the center of the galaxy, galactic radiation would be too
great and stellar density would disturb planetary orbits. Again, there would be the
wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate
planet core characteristics.

14. Parent star distance from closest spiral arm.
If the distance were too great, the quantity of heavy elements would be too small for
rocky planets to form.
If the distance were too small, the solar system would experience gravitational
disturbances and radiation exposure.

15. Z-axis height of stars orbit.
If the z-axis height were too high, exposure to harmful radiation from the galactic
core would be too great.

16. Number of stars in the planetary system.
If there were multiple stars in the solar system, tidal interactions would disrupt
Earths orbit.
If there were no stars in the system, Earth would have insufficient heat to support life.

17. Parent star age.
If the sun were older, its luminosity would change too quickly.
If the sun were younger, its luminosity would change too quickly.

18. Parent star mass.
If the suns mass were greater, its luminosity would change too quickly and it would
burn too rapidly.
If the suns mass were smaller, the range of planet distances that would make life
possible would be too narrow. In addition, tidal forces would disrupt Earths rotation
period. Also, ultraviolet radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and
oxygen.

19. Parent star metallicity.
If the suns metallicity were too small, there would be insufficient heavy elements for
life chemistry.
If the suns metallicity were too large, life would be poisoned by heavy-element
concentrations. Furthermore, radioactivity would be too intense for life.

20. Parent star color.
If the sun were redder, photosynthetic response would be insufficient.
If the sun were bluer, photosynthetic response would be insufficient.

21. Galactic tides.
If galactic tides were too weak, the comet ejection rate from the giant planet region
would be too low.
If galactic tides were too strong, the comet ejection rate from the giant planet region
would be too high.



25
22. H
3
+
production.
If H
3
+
production had been too small, simple molecules essential to planet formation
and life chemistry would not form.
If H
3
+
production had been too large, planets would form at the wrong time and place
for life.

23. Flux of cosmic ray protons.
If the proton flux had been too small, there would be inadequate cloud formation in
Earths troposphere.
If the proton flux had been too large, there would be too much cloud formation in
Earths troposphere.

24. Solar wind.
If the solar wind were too weak, too many cosmic rays protons would reach Earths
troposphere, causing too much cloud formation.
If the solar wind were too strong, too few cosmic ray protons would reach Earths
troposphere, causing too little cloud formation.

25. Parent star luminosity relative to speciation.
If the suns luminosity had increased too soon, a runaway greenhouse effect would
develop on Earth.
If the suns luminosity had increased too late, runaway glaciation would develop on
Earth.

26. Surface gravity (escape velocity).
If surface gravity were stronger, Earths atmosphere would retain too much ammonia
and methane.
If surface gravity were weaker, Earths atmosphere would loose too much water.

27. Distance from parent star.
If Earths distance from the sun were greater, Earth would be too cool for a stable
water cycle.
If Earths distance from the sun were lesser, Earth would be too warm for a stable
water cycle.

28. Inclination of orbit.
If Earths orbital inclination were too great, temperature differences would be too
extreme.

29. Orbital eccentricity.
If Earths orbital eccentricity were too great, seasonal temperature differences would
be too extreme.

30. Axial tilt.
If Earths axial tilt were greater, surface temperature differences would be too great.
If Earths axial tilt were lesser, surface temperature differences would be too great.



26
31. Rate of change of axial tilt.
If Earths rate of change of axial tilt were greater, climatic changes and surface
temperature differences would be too extreme.

32. Rotation period.
If Earths rotation period were longer, diurnal temperature differences would be too
great.
If Earths rotation period were briefer, atmospheric wind velocities would be too
great.

33. Rate of change in rotation period.
If the rate of change in Earths rotation period were more rapid, the surface
temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.
If the rate of change in Earths rotation period were less rapid, the surface
temperature range necessary for life would not be sustained.

34. Planet age.
If the Earth were too young, it would rotate too rapidly.
If the Earth were too old, it would rotate too slowly.

35. Magnetic field.
If the Earths magnetic field were stronger, electromagnetic storms would be too
severe. Also, too few cosmic ray protons would reach Earths troposphere, and this
would inhibit adequate cloud formation.
If the Earths magnetic field were too weak, the ozone shield would be inadequately
protected from hard stellar and solar radiation.

36. Thickness of crust.
If the Earths crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the
atmosphere to the crust.
If the Earths crust were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.

37. Albedo (ratio of reflected light to amount falling on surface).
If the Earths albedo were greater, runaway glaciation would develop.
If the Earths albedo were smaller, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

38. Asteroidal and cometary collision rate.
If this rate were greater, too many species would become extinct.
If this rate were lesser, the Earths crust would be too depleted of materials essential
for life.

39. Mass of body colliding with primordial Earth.
If the body were smaller, Earths atmosphere would have been too thick and the
moon would have been too small.
If the body were greater, Earths orbit and form would have been too greatly
disrupted.



27
40. Timing of body colliding with primordial Earth.
If the collision had occurred earlier, Earths atmosphere would be too thick and the
moon would be too small.
If the collision had occurred later, the Earths atmosphere would be too thin and thus
the sun would be too luminous for advanced life.

41. Location of body colliding with primordial Earth.
If the body had just grazed the Earth, there would have been insufficient debris to
form a large moon. Furthermore, the collision would have been inadequate to
annihilate Earths primordial atmosphere. Also, there would have been inadequate
transfer of heavy elements to Earth.
If the body had collided too close to dead center, damage from the collision would
have destroyed necessary conditions for (future) life.

42. Oxygen-to-nitrogen ratio in atmosphere.
If this ratio were larger, advanced life functions would proceed too quickly.
If this ratio were smaller, advance life functions would proceed too slowly.

43. Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere.
If the level were greater, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.
If the level were lesser, planets would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis.

44. Water vapor level in atmosphere.
If the Earths water vapor level were greater, a runaway greenhouse effect would
develop.
If the Earths water vapor level were smaller, rainfall would be too meager for
advanced life on land.

45. Atmospheric electric discharge rate.
If the discharge rate were greater, too much fire destruction would occur.
If the discharge rate were smaller, too little nitrogen would be fixed in the
atmosphere.

46. Ozone level in atmosphere.
If the ozone level were greater, surface temperatures would be too low and there
would be too little ultraviolet radiation for plant survival.
If the ozone level were too high, surface temperatures would be too high and there
would be too much ultraviolet radiation for plant survival.

47. Oxygen quantity in atmosphere.
If the oxygen quantity were greater, planets and hydrocarbons would burn up too
easily.
If the oxygen quantity were lesser, advanced animals would have too little oxygen to
breathe.



28
48. Ration of
40
K,
235
U,
238
U,
232
Th to iron.
If this ratio were too low, there would be inadequate levels of plate tectonic and
volcanic activity.
If this ratio were too high, the levels of radiation, earthquakes, and volcanoes would
be too high for advanced life.

49. Rate of interior heat loss.
If the rate were too low, there would be inadequate energy to drive the required levels
of plate tectonic and volcanic activity.
If the rate were too high, plate tectonic and volcanic activity would shut down too
quickly.

50. Seismic activity.
If seismic activity were greater, too many life forms would be destroyed.
If seismic activity were lesser, nutrients on the ocean floors from river runoff would
not be recycled to continents through tectonics. Furthermore, not enough carbon
dioxide would be released from carbonates.

51. Volcanic activity.
If volcanic activity were lower, insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water
vapor would be returned to the atmosphere. Also, soil mineralization would become
too degraded for life.
If volcanic activity were higher, advanced life would be destroyed.

52. Rate of decline in tectonic activity.
If the rate were slower, advanced life could never survive on Earth.
If the rater were faster, advanced life could never survive on Earth.

53. Rate of decline in volcanic activity.
If the rate were slower, advanced life could never survive on Earth.
If the rater were faster, advanced life could never survive on Earth.

54. Timing of birth of continent formation.
If the formation had begun too early, the silicate-carbonate cycle would have been
destabilized.
If the formation had begun too late, the silicate-carbonate cycle would have been
destabilized.

55. Oceans-to-continents ratio.
If the ratio were greater, diversity and complexity of life forms would be limited and
the silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized.
If the ratio were smaller, diversity and complexity of life forms would be limited and
the silicate-carbonate cycle would be destabilized.

56. Rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio.
If the rate was slower, advanced life would lack the needed landmass area.
If the rate was faster, advanced life would be destroyed by the radical changes.



29
57. Global distribution of continents.
If the continents were located too much in the southern hemisphere, seasonal
differences would be too severe for advanced life.

58. Frequency and extent of ice ages.
If these were smaller, insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys would have
been produced for diverse and advanced life.
If these were greater, Earth would experience runaway freezing.

59. Soil mineralization.
If the Earths soil were too nutrient-poor, the diversity and complexity of life forms
would be limited.
If the Earths soil were too nutrient-rich, the diversity and complexity of life forms
would be limited.

60. Gravitational interactions with a moon.
If the gravitational interaction were greater, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere,
and rotational period would be too severe.
If the gravitational interaction were lesser, orbital obliquity changes would cause
climatic instabilities. Movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the
continents and vice versa would be insufficient. Also the magnetic field would be too
weak.

61. Jupiter distance.
If the distance from Earth to Jupiter were greater, too many asteroid and comet
collisions would occur on Earth.
If the distance from Earth to Jupiter were lesser, Earths orbit would be unstable.

62. Jupiter mass.
If Jupiters mass were greater, Earths orbit would be unstable.
If Jupiters mass were lesser, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on
Earth.

63. Drift in major planet distances.
If the planet drift were greater, Earths orbit would be unstable.
If the planet drift were lesser, too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on
Earth.

64. Major planet eccentricities.
If the eccentricities of the major planets in this solar system were greater, Earth would
be pulled out of the life support zone.

65. Major planet orbital instabilities.
If the orbital instabilities were greater, Earth would be pulled out of the life support
zone.



30
66. Atmospheric pressure.
If atmospheric pressure on Earth were too slight, liquid water would evaporate too
easily and condense too infrequently. Additionally, weather and climate variation
would be too extreme and lungs could not function.
If atmospheric pressure on Earth were too great, liquid water would not evaporate
easily enough for land life. Also, insufficient sunlight and ultraviolet life would reach
the planets surface. There would be insufficient climate and weather variation. And
lungs would not function.

67. Atmospheric transparency.
If atmospheric transparency were lesser, an insufficient range of wavelengths of solar
radiation would reach Earths surface.
If atmospheric transparency were greater, too broad a range of wavelengths of would
reach Earths surface.

68. Magnitude and duration of the sun spot cycle.
If the magnitude of the cycle were lesser or the duration briefer, there would be
insufficient variation in climate and weather.
If the magnitude of the cycle were greater or the duration longer, variation in climate
and weather would be too great.

69. Continental relief.
If the relief were smaller, there would be insufficient variation in climate and
weather.
If the relief were greater, variation in climate and weather would be too great.

70. Chlorine quantity in atmosphere.
If there were less chlorine, erosion rates, the acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and
certain metabolic rates would be all be insufficient for most life forms.
If there were more chlorine, erosion rates, the acidity of rivers, lakes, and soils, and
certain metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms.

71. Iron quantities in oceans and soils.
If there were less iron, the quantity and diversity of life would be too limited to
support advanced life. And if the quantity were very small, no life would be possible.
If there were more iron, iron poisoning of at least advanced land life would result.

72. Troposphere ozone quantities.
If there were less tropospheric ozone, insufficient cleansing of biochemical smog
would result.
If there were more tropospheric ozone, the respiratory failure of advanced animals,
reduced crop yields, and the destruction of ozone-sensitive species would result.



31
73. Stratosphere ozone quantity.
If there were less stratospheric ozone, too much ultraviolet radiation would reach the
Earths surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth.
If there were more stratospheric ozone, too little ultraviolet radiation would reach the
Earths surface, causing reduced plant growth and insufficient vitamin production for
animals.

74. Mesospheric ozone quantity.
If there were less mesospheric ozone, circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases
would be so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life-essential gases in the
lower atmosphere.
If there were more mesospheric ozone, circulation and chemistry of mesospheric
gases would be so disturbed as to upset relative abundances of life-essential gases in
the lower atmosphere.

75. Quantity and extent of forests and grass fires.
If these were lesser, growth inhibitors in the soils would accumulate. Soil
nitrification would be insufficient. Also, there would be insufficient charcoal
production for adequate soil water retention and absorption of certain growth
inhibitors.
If these were greater, too many plant and animal life forms would be destroyed.

76. Quantity of soil sulfur.
If there were less sulfur in the soil, plants would become deficient of certain proteins
and die.
If there were more sulfur in the soil, plants would die from sulfur toxins. The acidity
of water and soil would become too great for life. Also, nitrogen cycles would be
disturbed.

77. Biomass-to-comet-infall ratio.
If this ratio were smaller, greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway
surface temperature increase.
If this ratio were larger, greenhouse gases would decline, triggering a runaway freeze.



32
Probabilities for Life on Earth


This appendix presents an estimate for the probability of attaining the necessary
parameters for life support on a planet. It includes 153 known parameters. (Reprinted from
Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men, Appendix B, pp. 185-189. A list of scientific references
supporting these design parameters is included at the end of the book.)



Parameter
Probability that feature will
fall in the required range
for physical life
Local abundance and distribution of dark matter .1
Galaxy cluster size .1
Galaxy cluster location .1
Galaxy size .1
Galaxy type .1
Galaxy mass distribution .2
Galaxy location .1
Variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate .1
Star location relative to galactic center .2
Star distance from corotation circle of galaxy .005
Star distance from closest spiral arm .1
Z-axis extremes of star orbit .02
Proximity of solar nebulae to a type I supernovae eruption .01
Timing of solar nebula formation relative to type I supernova eruption .01
Proximity of solar nebulae to a type II supernovae eruption .01
Timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption .01
Flux of cosmic ray protons .1
Variability of cosmic ray proton flux .1
Number of stars in birthing cluster .01
Star formation history in parent star vicinity .1
Birth date of the star-planetary system .01
Number of stars in the system .7
Number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars .01
Proximity of close stellar encounters .1
Masses of close stellar companion .1
Star age .4
Star metallicity .05
Ratio of
40
K,
235
U,
238
U,
232
Th to iron in star-planetary system .02
Star orbital eccentricity .1
Star mass .001
Star luminosity change relative to speciation types and rates .00001
Star color .4
Star magnetic field .1
Star magnetic field variability .1
Stellar wind strength and variability .1
Short period variation in parent star diameter .3
Stars carbon-to-oxygen ratio .01


33
Stars space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest .05
Stars short-term luminosity variability .05
Stars long-term luminosity variability .05
Amplitude and duration of star spot cycle .1
Number and timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds .1
Galactic tidal forces on planetary system .2
H
3
+
production .1
Supernovae rates and locations .01
White dwarf binary types, rates, and locations .01
Structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system .3
Planetary distance from star .001
Inclination of planetary orbit .5
Axis tilt of planet .3
Rate of change of axial tilt .01
Period and size of axial tilt variation .1
Planetary rotation period .1
Rate of change in planetary rotation period .05
Planetary rotation period .2
Planetary orbit eccentricity .3
Rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity .1
Rate of change of planetary inclination .5
Period and size of eccentricity variation .1
Period and size of inclination variation .1
Number of moons .2
Mass and distance of moon .01
Surface gravity (escape velocity) .001
Tidal force from sun and moon .1
Magnetic field .01
Rate of change and character of change in magnetic field .1
Albedo (planet reflectivity) .1
Density .1
Reducing strength of planets primordial mantle .3
Thickness of crust .01
Timing of birth of continent formation .1
Oceans-to-continents ratio .2
Rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio .1
Global distribution of continents .3
Frequency, timing, and extent of ice ages .1
Frequency, timing, and extent of global snowball events .1
Asteroidal and cometary collision rate .1
Rate of change in asteroidal and cometary collision rate .1
Mass of body colliding with primordial Earth .002
Timing of body colliding with primordial Earth .05
Location of bodys collision with primordial Earth .05
Position and mass of Jupiter relative to Earth .01
Major planet eccentricities .1
Major planet orbital instabilities .05
Drift and rate of drift in major planet distances .05


34
Number and distribution of planets .01
Distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances .02
Atmospheric transparency .01
Atmospheric pressure .01
Atmospheric viscosity .1
Atmospheric electric discharge rate .01
Atmospheric temperature gradient .01
Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .01
Rate of change in carbon dioxide level in atmosphere .1
Rate of change in water vapor level in atmosphere .01
Rate of change methane level in early atmosphere .01
Oxygen quantity in atmosphere .01
Nitrogen quantity in atmosphere .01
Chlorine quantity in atmosphere .1
Carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere .1
Cobalt quantity in crust .1
Arsenic quantity in crust .1
Copper quantity in crust .1
Boron quantity in crust .1
Fluorine quantity in crust .1
Iodine quantity in crust .1
Manganese quantity in crust .1
Nickel quantity in crust .1
Phosphorus quantity in crust .1
Tin quantity in crust .1
Zinc quantity in crust .1
Molybdenum quantity in crust .05
Vanadium quantity in crust .1
Chromium quantity in crust .1
Selenium quantity in crust .1
Iron quantity in oceans .1
Tropospheric ozone quantity .01
Stratospheric ozone quantity .01
Mesospheric ozone quantity .01
Water vapor level in atmosphere .01
Oxygen-to-nitrogen ratio in atmosphere .1
Quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
Rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere .01
Quantity of forest and grass fires .01
Quantity of sea salt aerosols .1
Soil mineralization .1
Quantity of anaerobic bacteria in the oceans .01
Quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans .01
Quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria .001
Quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil .01
Quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil .01
Quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil .01
Quantity and timing of vascular plants introductions .001


35
Quantity, timing, and placement of carbonate-producing animals .00001
Quantity, timing, and placement of methanogens .00001
Quantity of soil sulfur .1
Rate of interior heat loss for planet .01
Quantity of sulfur in the planets core .1
Quantity of silicon in the planets core .1
Quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust .01
Quantity of high-pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs .1
Hydration rate of subducted minerals .1
Tectonic activity .05
Rate of decline in tectonic activity .1
Volcanic activity .1
Rate of change of volcanic activity .1
Continental relief .1
Viscosity at Earth core boundaries .01
Viscosity of lithosphere .2
Biomass-to-comet infall ratio .01
Regularity of cometary infall .1
Number, intensity, and location of hurricanes .02

Dependency factors estimate 10
30
Longevity requirements 10
13


The probability of a planet anywhere in the universe fitting within all 153 parameters is
approximately 10
-194
. The maximum possible number of planets in the universe is estimated to
be 10
22
. Thus, less than 1 chance in 10
172
(100 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur
anywhere in the universe.



36
Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe


For life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values,
and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy
of their relationship, the indication of fine-tuning seems incontrovertible. (Reprinted from Lights
in the Sky & Little Green Men, Appendix C, pp. 191-192. A list of scientific references
supporting these design parameters is included at the end of the book.)

1. Strong nuclear force constant.
2. Weak nuclear force constant.
3. Gravitational force constant.
4. Electromagnetic force constant.
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant.
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass.
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons.
8. Expansion rate of the universe.
9. Mass density of the universe.
10. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe.
11. Space energy density of the universe.
12. Entropy level of the universe.
13. Velocity of light.
14. Age of the universe.
15. Uniformity of radiation.
16. Homogeneity of the universe.
17. Average distance between galaxies.
18. Average distance between stars.
19. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters.
20. Fine structure constant.
21. Decay rate of protons.
22. Ground state energy level for helium-4.
23. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio.
24. Decay rate for beryllium-8.
25. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass.
26. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons.
27. Polarity of the water molecule.
28. Epoch for supernova eruptions.
29. Frequency of supernovae eruptions.
30. Epoch of white dwarf binaries.
31. Density of white dwarf binaries.
32. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter.
33. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe.
34. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe.
35. Mass of the neutrino.
36. Magnitude of big bang ripples.
37. Size of the relativistic dilation factor.
38. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.



37

Footnotes:


1
G. Cocconi and P. Morrison, Searching for Interstellar Communication, Nature 184, pp. 844-846.
2
F. Drake, Project Ozma, Physics Today, 14, 4 (1961), pp. 40-46.
3
The name Ozma was taken from L Frank Baums book, Ozma of Oz.
4
The Drake equation was first developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as an attempt to determine the feasibility of
actually detecting extraterrestrial signals. There are a number of variations of this equation that are commonly
used today. His published equation and estimates for each of the terms is given in Ref. 35. The factor, f
s
, is
absent in Drakes original formulation but is included here because SETI enthusiasts commonly use it today.
5
META stands for Mega-channel Extraterrestrial Assay and was a five year project that ended in 1993. P. Horowitz
and C. Sagan, Five Years of Project META: An All-Sky Narrow-band Radio Search for Extraterrestrial
Signals, Astrophysical Journal, 415 (1993), pp. 218-235.
6
BETA stands for Billion-channel Extraterrestrial Assay. More information on Project BETA can be found at
http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/BETA/default.html
7
SERENDIP stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Emissions from Nearby Developed Intelligent Populations. More
information on Project SERENDIP can be found at http://seti.ssl.berkeley.edu/serendip/.
8
SETI@Home is project whereby individual computer owners can allow radio telescope data from Project
SERENDIP to be automatically downloaded onto their computer, processed, and sent back using only unused
computer time. By harnessing Internet-connected computers all over the country (this is referred to as
distributed computing), SETI is able to fully analyze the enormous amount of data being collected and allow
individual citizens to participate in SETIs search for extra-terrestrials. More information can be found at
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/.
9
Project Phoenix received its name after its government funding was canceled but it was revived from its ashes by
public sponsorship. http://www.seti-inst.edu/seti/our_projects/project_phoenix/Welcome.html.
10
C. Sagan and F. Drake, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Scientific American, 232, May 1975, pp. 80-
89.
11
I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1966.
12
Seth Shostak, Listening for Life, Astronomy, October 1992, pp. 26-33. Seth Shostak, When E.T. Calls Us,
Astronomy, September 1997, pp. 37-51.
13
Sky and Telescope magazine web site with information on SETI: http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/SETI/
14
D. McKay, E. Gibson Jr., K. Thomas-Keprta, H. Vali, C. Romanek, S. Clemett, X. Chillier, C. Maechling, R.
Zare, Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic of Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001,
Science, 273 (1996), p. 924.
15
J. Hartsfield and D. Salsbury, Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars, NASA News, World
Wide Web, Aug. 7, 1996, p. 1.
16
J. Shreeve, Find of the Century? Discover, Jan. 1997, pp. 40-41.
17
T. Monmaney, Impact of Mars meteorite may be cosmological blow for mankind, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 2,
1996, p. 11A.
18
A. Albee, Mars find could be rock of ages, The Arizona Republic, Aug. 18, 1996, p. H1.
19
E. Wilson, Meteorite worms: Martian nanofossils or lab gunk? C&EN, Dec. 8, 1997, p. 8.
20
A. Chaikin, Life on Mars: The Great Debate, Popular Science, July 1997, pp. 60-65.
21
E. Wilson, Cold Water Thrown on Martian Life Hypothesis, C&EN, Jan. 7, 1998, pp. 8-9.
22
R. Cowen, Biology on Europa, Science News, 151 (1997), p. 210.
23
D. Cruikshank, Comet Hale-Bopp: Stardust Memories, Science, 275 (1997), pp. 1895-1896.


38

24
New York Times News Service, Comets Scattering Seeds of Life? Hale-Bopp Findings Boost Theory, April 1,
1997.
25
The problems that would be faced by an advanced civilization trying to cross vast interstellar distances are
discussed in depth in H. Ross, K. Samples, and M. Clark, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men, NavPress,
Colorado Springs, CO 2002, p. 55-64
26
Timothy Ferris, Seeking an end to cosmic loneliness, The New York Times Magazine, October 23
rd
, 1977, p. 97.
27
Frank Drake, Is Anyone Out There? 1992.
28
I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, Intelligent Life in the Universe, Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1966, p. 411.
29
Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Scientific American, 232, May 1975,
p. 80.
30
The Copernican Principle was actually coined by Immanuel Kant, not Nicholas Copernicus, based on his work
that our sun was but one of the myriads of stars that inhabit our galaxy. Kant was philosophically opposed to
the idea that God intervened in any way in the formation of the solar system, our planet, or even earth life,
hence neither the sun nor the Earth could be special in any way since they would have been produced by the
exact same laws of physics as other planets and stars. Thus the Copernican Principle is really a philosophical
principle rather than a scientific one. Copernicus would certainly have rejected this principle that bears his
name.
31
R. Naeye, OK, Where Are They? Astronomy, July 1996, p. 38.
32
R
*
is the rate of star formation in the past when stars like our own sun were forming, rather than the current rate of
formation. Star formation was more common earlier in the galaxys history.
33
There has been some speculation that Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has a layer of liquid water under its icy exterior
and hence could be a possible sight for life even though Jupiter and Europa both lie outside the Goldilocks
zone of our sun. While this is an unsettled question, it is not relevant for our discussion here since we are
specifically concerned only with intelligent communicating life.
34
I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, pp. 413.
35
F. Drake, The Radio Search for Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life, Current Aspects of Exobiology, edited by G.
Mamikunian and M. Briggs, Pergamon Press (1965), pp. 323-345.
36
I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, pp. 408-413.
37
Values taken from http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html (as of Nov. 9,
2002). This site organized the Drake equation in a slightly different way and so the numbers were adjusted to
fit the format used here.
38
Values taken from http://www.seds.org/~rme/drake.html (as of Nov. 9, 2002). SEDS stands for Students for the
Exploration and Development of Space.
39
Values taken from http://www.lifeinuniverse.org/noflash/Drakeequation-07-02.html (as of Nov. 9, 2002). Not all
of their values were stated clearly but are presented as fairly as possible.
40
Eleven events were been detected by project META that satisfy most of SETIs criteria for possible
extraterrestrial communication but none of these signals were subsequently redetected and so cannot be
considered genuine signals. P. Horowitz and C. Sagan, Five Years of Project META: An All-Sky Narrow-
band Radio Search for Extraterrestrial Signals, Astrophysical Journal, 415 (1993), pp. 218-235.
41
R. Dixon, The Ohio SETI Program--The First Decade, The Search for Extraterrestrial Life: Recent
Developments (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), pp. 305-314.
42
In 1977, Ohio State University detected a signal known as the WOW! signal (because someone scribble this
word next to the signal). This signal has been scrutinized but never redetected. R. H. Grey, A Search of the
WOW Locale for intermittent Radio Signals, Icarus, 112, 1994, pp. 485-489.
43
C. F. Chyba, Life Beyond Mars, Nature, volume 382, 1996, pp. 577.


39

44
A. J. LePage, Where They Could Hide: The Galaxy Appears Devoid of Supercivilizations, but Lesser Cultures
Could Have Eluded the Ongoing Searches, Scientific American, July 2000, p. 40-41.
45
S. Webb, If the Universe is Teeming with Aliens Where is Everybody? Fifty Solutions to the Fermi Paradox
and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life, Copernicus, New York, 2002.
46
I. Crawford, Where Are They? Scientific American, July 2000, pp. 38-43.
47
Numerous variations on this argument have been proposed in the literature. Because of the enormous difficulties
in sending and maintaining living beings for stellar distances, civilizations might just send embryos or simply
their DNA, which could then be brought to maturity at the destination. This is also known as panspermia. An
alternative possibility is self-replicating robots (also known as Von Neumann machines). An example of this
later position is given in F. J. Tipler, Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings Do Not Exist, Physics Today, April
1981, pp. 9, 70-71; and associated commentary in Physics Today, March 1982, pp. 26-38.
48
M. H. Hart, An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth, Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 16, (1973), pp. 128-135.
49
For a good description of our solar system and the unique features of each of the planets, see S. R. Taylor, Destiny
or Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain (2000).
50
Current technology is primarily limited to the detection of very large planets the size of Saturn, Jupiter, or larger
but future telescopes should be able to detect smaller inner planets. Most of the new planets have been
discovered by detecting a faint wobble in the star due to the gravitational attraction of its planets. This methods
is only able to determine the minimum mass of a planet, so some of these planets may actually be brown
dwarf stars. Future work with the Hubble Space Telescope will be able to establish the actual mass of the very
nearby planets. Other detection methods including gravitational lensing and transit method.
51
An up-to-date catalog of known extra-solar planets can be found at http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/catalog.html.
52
G. Gonzalez, New Planets Hurt Chances for ETI, Facts & Faith, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1998), pp. 3-4.
53
S. Flamsteed, Impossible Planets, Discover, Sept. 1997, pp. 78-83.
54
Who ordered that? was the exclamation of mock horror by Columbia University physicist I. I. Rabi upon
receiving news of the discovery of the muon, a new and totally unpredicted subatomic particle.
55
Gravitational lensing is where the gravity of an intermediate object acts as a lens enabling us to see things that we
normally would not be able to see. Only star systems that are correctly aligned behind a gravitational source
can be viewed this way and such alignment is extremely is rare.
56
S. H. Rhie et al., On Planetary Companions to the MACHO 98-BLG-35 Microlens Star, Astrophysical Journal
533 (2000), pp. 378-91.
57
The editors, Our Friend Jove, Discover, July 1993, p. 15.
58
H. Ross, Computer Models Reveal New Evidence of Gods Care, Facts & Faith, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1993), p. 1-3.
59
G. Witherill, How Special is Jupiter, Nature, 373 (1995), p. 470.
60
B. Zuckerman, T. Forveille, and J. Kastner, Inhibition of Giant-Planet Formation by Rapid Gas Depletion
Around Young Stars, Nature, 373 (1995), pp. 494-496.
61
R. Jayawarhana, No Alien Jupiters, Science, 265 (1994), p. 1527.
62
H. Ross, Rarity of Jupiter-sized Planets Confirmed, Facts & Faith, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1995), p. 3.
63
H. Ross, Drifting Giants Highlight Jupiters Uniqueness, Facts & Faith, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1996), p. 4.
64
H. Ross, Jupiters Miracle Migration, Connections, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2002), pp. 1,5.
65
H. Ross, New Planets Raise Unwarranted Speculation About Life Sites, Facts & Faith, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1996),
pp. 1-3.
66
J. van Paradijs, From Gamma-Ray Bursts to Supernovae, Science, 286 (1999), p. 693-695.
67
J. Scalo and J. C. Wheeler, Astrophysical and Astrobiological implications of Gamma-Ray Burst Properties,
Astrophysical Journal, 566 (2002), p. 723-737.


40

68
Ray White III and William C Keel, Direct Measurement of the Optical Depth in a Spiral Galaxy, Nature 359
(1992), 129-130.
69
Yu N. Mishurov and L. A. Zenina, Yes, the Sun is Located Near the Corotation Circle, Astronomy and
Astrophysics 341, (1999), pp. 81-85.
70
A globular cluster is a spherical grouping of stars and represents some of the oldest stars in a galaxy.
71
R. L. Gilliland, et al., A Lack of Planets in 47 Tucanae from a Hubble Space Telescope Search, Astrophysical
Journal Letters, 545, 2000, p. L47-51.
72
H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, NavPress, CO, 1993, pp. 128-129.
73
H. Ross, Lunar Origin Update, Fact & Faith, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1-3.
74
H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3
rd
Ed., NavPress, CO, 2001, pp. 201-212.
75
M. Ludwig, Computer Viruses, Artificial Life, and Evolution, American Eagle Publications, AZ 1993.
76
C. B. Thaxton, W. L. Bradley, and R. L. Olsen, The Mystery of Lifes Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,
Lewis and Stanley, TX 1992.
77
R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, (New York, Summit Books, 1986).
78
H. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1992).
79
M. J. Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Touchstone, New York 1996.
80
B. Carter, The Anthropic Principle and its Implications for Biological Evolution, Proc. Royal Soc. Discussion
Meetings on the Constants of Physics, edited by W. H. McRea and M. J. Rees, R. Soc., London, 1983 and in
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, A310, p. 347-355.
81
R. Breuer, The Anthropic Principle: Man as the Focal Point of Nature, Bukhuser, Boston, 1991.
82
Why Life May Be Common and Intelligence Rare, Sky and Telescope, February 2003, p. 26.
83
B. M. Testa, What killed Mars? Signs of water there drive theories about what depleted its atmosphere,
Houston Chronicle, April 12, 1996, p. 6D.
84
I. S. Shklovskii and C. Sagan, pp. 343-350.
85
Design statistics were collected by astronomer Dr. H. Ross. In H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, NavPress,
CO, 1993, pp. 123-135, he lists 33 design parameters with explanations and estimates. In the second edition of
the book (1995, pp. 132-144) this was expanded to include 41 design parameters. By the third edition (2001,
pp. 175-199), this list had increased to 128. H. Ross, K. Samples, and M. Clark, Lights in the Sky & Little
Green Men, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 2002, pp. 171-189, gives the current listing of 153 design
parameters. These design parameters are reproduced in the appendices of this paper.
86
For example, the SETI institutes response: http://www.seti-inst.edu/seti/seti_science/rare_earth/rare_earth.html.
87
R. Naeye, p. 43
88
It is important to note that the author of this paper does not accept the conclusion that life arises by purely natural
processes for the reasons stated earlier in this paper. This reference is included here to emphasize that the belief
that the earth and sun are indeed special is not depended upon a belief in Biblical creation or a rejection of
abiotic evolution. In other words, even if we were to grant SETI proponents abiotic evolution purely for the
sake of argument, their case would still fail.
89
P. Ward and D. Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, Copernicus, NY 2000,
p. xiv.
90
P. Ward and D. Brownlee, p. 275.
91
G. Gonzalez, Nobody Here but Us Earthlings, The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 1997, p. A22. This article
along with three contrasting viewpoints and a follow-up response by G. Gonzalez can be found in Cosmic
Pursuit, Spring 1999, 16-19, 63.
92
G. Gonzalez, Nobody Here but Us Earthlings, p. A22.


41

93
Psalms 19:1, New International Version.
94
Scientists get serious about weird life, The Kansas City Star, December 1, 2002, p. A8.
95
R. Naeye, p. 38-39.
96
Polarity refers to an unequal distribution of electrons so that some portions of a molecule have a partial positive
charge and other parts have a partial negative charge. For water, the oxygen atom has a stronger pull on the
electrons that the hydrogen atoms do, so the oxygen has a partial negative charge and the two hydrogens have a
partial positive charge.
97
R. Breuer, p. 209-218.
98
R. A. Horne, Marine Chemistry: The Structure of Water and the Chemistry of the Hydrosphere, Wiley, 1969.
Horne lists ten anomalous chemical properties of water, their importance in biology, and comparisons to other
solvents. The 10 properties are waters heat capacity, heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, thermal expansion,
surface tension, dissolving power, dielectric constant, electrolytic dissociation, transparency, and conduction of
heat
99
F. H. Stillinger, Water Revisited, Science 299 (1990), p. 451-457. Stillinger notes 8 notable properties of
water and comments, Some of these attributes are shared with other substances; perhaps we will eventually
discover that they all are. Nevertheless, it is striking that so many eccentricities should occur together in one
substance.
100
R. H. Dicke, Diracs Cosmology and Machs Principle, Nature 192, 1961, p. 440.
101
An overview of different Christian views on extraterrestrial life and its possible implications for Christianity can
be found in D. Wilkinson, Some Alien Problems for God? Cosmic Pursuit, Sprint 1999, pp. 28-33, 63-64.
102
S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, New York 1988, pp. 126-127.
103
H. Ross, The Haste to Conclude Waste, Facts & Faith, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1997), p. 1-3.
104
Brandon Carter, Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology, Proceedings of the
International Astronomical Union Symposium, No. 63: Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with
Observational Data, ed. M. S. Longair (Dordrecht-Holland/Boston, U.S.A.: D. Reidel, 1974), 291-298.
105
H. Ross, K. Samples, and M. Clark, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 2002,
Appendix C, p. 171-184. This appendix is given in Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe on page 36.
106
Lawrence M. Krauss, The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,
Astrophysical Journal 501 (1998): 461-66.
107
John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press,
1986); F. Bertola and U. Curi, eds., The Anthropic Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993);
Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988); Michael J. Denton, Natures Destiny
(New York: The Free Press, 1998); George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow,
1988); Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed.(Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001); Peter D. Ward
and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth (New York: Copernicus, 2000).
108
Quotes from nineteen astronomers who have done research on the anthropic principle may be found in Hugh
Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3
rd
Ed., NavPress, CO, 2001, p. 157-60.
109
H. Ross, A Precise Plan for Humanity, Facts For Faith (Q1 2002), pp. 25-31.
110
H. Ross, Life on Mars as Proof of Evolution? Facts & Faith, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1998, pp. 1-2; H. Ross, Life on
Mars Revisited, Facts & Faith, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989, p. 2; H. Ross, Ahead to Mars, or Back to Babel? Facts &
Faith, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1991, p. 1-3.
111
H. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, NavPress, CO, 1993, pp. 144-146.