Never fear, the Fermi paradox is here
Do you ever wonder why NASA and others claim that there are other forms of life somewhere out there in our universe? As science began to develop stronger telescopes, it became evident to them that the universe was much larger than anyone had thought. In fact, the original series hosted by non-other than Dr. Millions and Millions himself, Dr. Carl Sagan. In his original 1978 series, The Cosmos, he popularized the concept that our planet was a mere blue speck almost lost in the vastness of our own galaxy. In addition to that, Dr. Sagan surmised that from the perspective of the universe, our home planet was completely insignificant.
Why do evolutionary astronomers, cosmologists and NASA devotees constantly search for life in outer space? Why are they so certain that life must exist out there somewhere in the cosmos? Part of the reason has to do with the discovery that the universe is almost infinitely large. According to certain measurements, our universe is still expanding. We have not yet seen the edges of our universe, but what we do know is that there are hundreds of billions of stars in every galaxy and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies of various sizes and shape throughout the cosmos. Because these men and women have swallowed the Theory of Evolution hook, line and sinker, they are certain that there must be a planet somewhere out there that can sustain life. They ignore the scientists that claim the odds against rocks transforming into men are statistically nil.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1990), scientists not given to hyperbole, wrote:
The random chance is not a million to one against, but p to 1 against, with p minimally an enormous superastronomical number equal to 1040000 (1 followed by 40,000 zeros). The odds we have thus computed are only for the enzymes, and of course, correct arrangements with many other important macromolecules histone-4 and cytochrome-c are two such examples, each with exceedingly small probability of being obtained by chance. If all these other relevant molecules for life are also taken account of in our calculation, the situation for conventional biology becomes doubly worse. The odds of one in 1040000 against are horrendous enough, but that would have to be increased to a major degree. Such a number exceeds the total number of fundamental particles through the observed Universe by very, very many orders of magnitude. So great are the odds against life being produced in a purely mechanistic way that the difficulties for an Earthbound, mechanistic biology are in our view intrinsically insuperable.
Sagan and others of his ilk are not impressed with the impossibility of inorganic material transforming itself into organic life. They think that, given the right circumstance such as an earth-like planet in a habitable zone orbiting a star similar to our Sun will produce life. As long as there is water, you can add some dirt and minerals, mix for several million years and life will eventually emerge.
This confidence did not originate with Dr. Sagan. The evolutionary faithful have been shocked that they have not found any signs of alien life. They have been diligently looking for it and it seems nowhere to be found, except on our home planet. Every couple of months, there are announcements made by astronomers that claim to have found one of these planets. They even name them “Goldilocks planets” after the children’s story. The fact that for over 50 years E.T. has not phoned home or anywhere else for that matter has irked those who are certain that life exists somewhere in outer space.
We can rest assured that hope springs eternal in the minds of atheist and agnostic scientists with regard to finally making contact with alien life. However, several problems should be considered in any serious discussion concerning extraterrestrial life. First, these scientists have a 100% failure rate with regard to their ambitious, but ill-conceived, efforts to have E.T. phone them. Over 50 years of listening for E.T. have yielded zero evidence in favor of the existence of extraterrestrial life.
The answer can be found in the logic of the Fermi paradox. What exactly is the Fermi paradox? It was the result of a 1950 discussion with physicist Enrico Fermi. In 1975, astrophysicist Michael Hart wrote a paper containing a more detailed discussion of the implications of the Fermi paradox, sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart paradox.
It is a set of seemingly logical precepts concerning the existence of extraterrestrial life. The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations (in the minds of evolutionary scientists) and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations. These precepts are based entirely on a fallacious premise, i.e. that there must be life somewhere in the vast uncharted regions of outer space. Here is the Fermi paradox in a nutshell:
The size and age of the universe incline us to believe that many technologically advanced civilizations must exist. However, this belief seems logically inconsistent with our lack of observational evidence to support it. Either:
(1) The initial assumption is incorrect and technologically advanced
intelligent life is much rarer than we believe, or
(2) Our current observations are incomplete and we simply have not
detected them yet, or
(3) Our search methodologies are flawed and we are not searching for the
Have you noticed the flaw? There is nothing in this paradox that allows for the possibility that life simply does not exist in outer space. Fermi states, life might exist, but the smart aliens are too rare for us to discover or we just haven’t looked in the right place yet or we are not doing it correctly or fill in the blank yourself any old reason will do. Bottom line, according to Fermi and those who endorse his paradox, life exists in outer space, period! End of discussion. The newest hypothesis concerning the Fermi paradox is that the aliens cannot contact us, or anyone else for that matter, because they're dead. These same people lecture creationists and Intelligent Design theorists about what is science and what is not science, yet they are constantly making ridiculous statements with regard to their atheistic and agnostic worldview masquerading as science.
One thing is certain; those who do not recognize the Creator of all that is seen and unseen in our spectacular universe will continue looking for life in all the wrong places. We know that God spoke the universe into existence in six literal 24-hour days and rested on the 7th day declaring everything He had created to be “very good,” Gen. 1:21. When you are spiritually dead in your own trespasses and sins, including the most egregious of all sins, the sin of self-righteousness (pride), you will continue looking for life apart from the personal relationship our Creator offered to everyone through His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, Matt. 11:28.
The more our evolutionary counterparts look for life without the benefit of the knowledge of the One who created it; they are doomed to repeat the failures of their predecessors.