|
Atheism and Belief in
Intelligent ET: Trusting in The Blessed Equation
by Michael S. Heiser, PhD
Over the course of the last
couple of days we’ve been treated once again to the parade of
astronomers and astrobiologists pontificating on the likelihood
that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In the
wake of a couple of decades of failure on the part of the SETI
program, the new credo is that “aliens could be staring us right
in the face,” but we’re too dim-witted to recognize them. In an
effort to renew enthusiasm for the search for extraterrestrial
life, Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society and
astronomer to the queen (wonder why she needs one of those)
recently directed a conference entitled, The Detection of
Extra-terrestrial Life and the Consequences for Science and
Society. The purpose of the conference was to ask whether the
discovery of aliens would cause terror or delight on earth. Rees
and other astronomers have been making the news rounds telling
anyone who will listen that improved telescopes made the chance
of finding extra-terrestrial life “better than ever.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that astronomers are
atheists. I personally know some PhDs in this field who are firm
Christians. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t make any
investment in trying to detect intelligent ET life. I share the
enthusiasm of Lord Rees, at least to some extent. I don’t,
however, share his optimism. I also think the recent news is a
prime opportunity for showing how many scientists who do espouse
atheism allow their wish to find an ET somewhere to blind their
rationality. I would suggest that the optimism of Rees and his
fellows is not based on better technology–it’s really based on
faith. In this case, faith in an equation. The trouble is, this
equation is basically worthless.
I begin with a simple question: WHY is Lord Rees and so many
others so optimistic about the likelihood of intelligent ET life
being out there? The answer is they believe that mathematical
probability argues in favor of likelihood.
But does it?
This idea—that there is an overwhelming mathematical probability
that there are intelligent aliens somewhere else in the universe
has risen to the status of a creed in the UFO community. It
derives from something called the Drake Equation.
The Drake equation was created in 1961 by astronomer Frank
Drake. Its iconic status is seen in that it has been referenced
in Star Trek: Voyager (“Future’s End”), Michael Crichton’s
Sphere, and the Jodie Foster sci-fi film, Contact.
The Drake Equation is a mathematical postulate that states:
N = R* x fp x ne x fe x fi x fc x L
Okay . . . what does all that mean?
|
N
= the number of civilizations in our galaxy with
which communication might be possible
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in
our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can
potentially support life per star that has planets
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on
to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on
to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a
technology that releases detectable signs of their
existence into space
L = the length of time such civilizations release
detectable signals into space. |
In 1961, the
values that were inserted into the equation yielded and answer
of 10—ten postulated civilizations were out there in the
universe somewhere waiting to be discovered. I know it’s hard to
fathom, but this is the basis for the supreme confidence of a
host of astronomers and physicists who promote SETI (The Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). It gets worse.
Current data suggests the answer to the equation is really 2.31.
It gets worse still.
Let me share what one lauded scientist, T. J. Nelson, thinks of
the strength of the Drake Equation. It sort of affirms the
obvious, but I think people might respond to it better from this
credentialed scientist (emphasis is mine):
| The Drake
equation consists of a large number of probabilities
multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed
to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also
guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between
0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are
completely unknown, making the result worse than
useless. |
The famous
science fiction author and medical doctor, Michael Crichton,
echoed those sentiments:
| The problem,
of course, is that none of the terms can be known,
and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to
work the equation is to fill in with guesses . . .
Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is
literally meaningless. |
In other
words, the Drake Equation is simply guesswork dressed up to look
like data. This is what produces all the optimism. This is why
atheists, like our friend in my earlier post, say that have
faith in knowledge, not myth. The Drake equation is not
knowledge; it is a slice of faith grounded in no actual data
that has now become a dogma. It’s part of the ET Hypothesis
catechism.
Granted, I’d love for this emperor to have some clothes. The
genuine discovery of ET life (that isn’t hostile or evil) is on
my short list of “ridiculously improbable things I’d like to see
or experience before I die.” But the next time someone brings up
the statistical odds of ET being out there, I’m liable to test
their faith. It’s time someone asked them to do the math.
|
