More popular than populous
What does the possibility of extra-terrestrial life teach us about creation?
But outer space
But outer Space,
At least this far,
For all the fuss
Of the populace
Stays more popular
Than populous
—Robert Frost, In the Clearing, 1962
One of the most common questions I’m asked by both believers and non-believers is what I think about both the probability and implications of intelligent life existing “out there.”
Scientifically speaking, the probability is not great. The implications are fascinating, though.
The universe is positively brimming over with stuff—there are hundreds of billions of galaxies just within our view of the universe, and each of those is populated with billions or even trillions of stars. But I don’t think this is what Frost was referring to when he said that the universe is more popular than populous. I rather suspect he was referring to intelligent beings.
I think the possibility of rudimentary forms of life like bacteria existing elsewhere in the universe is low, but not exceedingly low. Despite being “rudimentary,” bacteria are more than just globs of molecules, they’re wonders of complexity that suggest design. Still, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I don’t rule out the possibility that we’ll find them on other planets.
Compared with bacteria, however, which are already amazing examples of biological machinery, human beings are entire universes of biological wonder. It’s not just our physical bodies, but our intelligence and consciousness that make us truly remarkable. Personally, I think the possibility of conscious, intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the observable universe—purely by chance—is exceedingly low. From a purely materialist perspective, the only thing that can plausibly save the proposition of advanced, intelligent life existing elsewhere is if the universe is infinite or near-infinite in scale, and we have no idea if this is true.
We can speculate about the odds of extra-terrestrial life existing, given things like what we know about the habitability of the universe and the odds of “random” processes giving rise to life, but we’ll never settle the question unequivocally unless we ever get direct evidence of such life. Meanwhile, it does raise the rather interesting question of whether the presence of life elsewhere in the universe would undermine the bibical view of Creation.
I don’t think it does.
Ancient and medieval Jewish scholars of the Genesis account of creation maintained that the universe was created with the potential for life built into it. This agrees with the growing scientific evidence that the universe is tuned for life. Working from both perspectives, I would be only mildly surprised (as opposed to stupefied) if we ever found evidence of something like bacteria “out there.”
But the religiously pivotal question is not whether we find the basic elements of life elsewhere, but whether we ever find intelligent or conscious life elsewhere, since, according to the biblical view, these would have to be deliberate creations by God.
To see why, let's turn to scripture.
If you read Genesis 1 in the original Hebrew, you notice different verbs are used when describing key events: bara (created), asah (made), and haya (come to pass; happen; arise).
Bara refers to the instantaneous act of bringing something into existence that did not exist before. Genesis uses this word only three times: first for the creation of the universe on day one, then for the creation of animal (intelligent) life on the fifth day, and for the last time on the sixth day when Adam is endowed with a human soul.
For other events of Genesis 1, different verbs are used. On day one, when light first appears, the word haya (come to pass; arise) is used. God says for light “to be” and then it is. On the third day, when life first appears, the word asah (made) is used, as though something that already existed, like the raw materials of earth, was being restructured.
Given this pattern from Genesis, we can infer that any extra-terrestrial non-intelligent forms of life, like bacteria, would fall under the category of asah (made). Intelligent and conscious forms of life would fall under the category of bara (created).
With this in mind, let’s ask a revised version of the key question: Would the discovery of conscious beings elsewhere in the universe undermine the biblical view of Creation? It would if Genesis stated that the creation of Adam was a unique event, not to be repeated elsewhere in space or time. But I haven’t seen anything in scripture to suggest this is the case.
In fact, the great Christian apologist, C. S. Lewis, laid out a plausible scenario for intelligent and conscious life existing on other planets within the context of the biblical view in The Space Trilogy.1 In these novels, a human character encounters beings on other planets in the solar system that, though they have some things in common with us, live on planets that are not under siege by spiritual enemies. Unlike us, they are unfallen and thus enjoy direct communication with God. This is why Lewis titled the first book of the trilogy Out of the Silent Planet. Ours is the only planet not in direct communication with God.
This brings us to one of the great problems for the materialist view of humans that we have no spiritual component. How do we explain why an overwhelming majority of humans throughout history have demonstrated a deep longing for the spiritual? The prevailing materialist explanation seems to be that spirituality is an evolutionary tic, an unfortunate byproduct of an otherwise beneficial genetic mutation.
So let’s engage in a bit of speculation to turn the tables. If someone asks you whether intelligent life “out there” undermines Christianity, you can follow up with another question. Would the discovery of intelligent, conscious beings on another planet who turn out to be as spiritually-inclined as humans undermine the materialist view of existence? Given the immense improbability of two entirely unrelated species of conscious beings developing the same evolutionary tic independently, I think it could finish materialism off for good.
I truly love this trilogy, despite the fact that it insults my profession. The main character of the first two books, who is a professor and linguist, is an obvious tribute to Lewis’ good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien. We therefore can’t be surprised that the professor is a respectable man of good qualities. The villain, however, who is a nefarious fool overcome by dark forces, is a physicist. *sigh* I guess Lewis had to write it that way. It wouldn’t have made sense to have a chemist or biologist building a rocket ship to Mars.
"Personally, I think the possibility of conscious, intelligent beings existing elsewhere in the observable universe—purely by chance—is exceedingly low."
Or nil. When you stare at the night sky and consider the size of the"universe", you're looking at all that is required for us to exist.