Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!


A new lead in the search for life beyond Earth

Is there life beyond our earth? And are there planets out there waiting to be inhabited? Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, philosophers and scientists have sought answers for these questions. More recently, there has been a concerted push to advance space technology. We now have: 

But even with these incredible tools, scientists still have not been able to answer these questions. However, a group of scientists at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) think they may be getting closer. Ana Lobo, Aomawa Shields, Igor Palubski, and Eric Wolf believe that they have found planets that have the potential for liquid water and thus, in their minds, potential for extra-terrestrial life. Their study was summarized in a March 16, 2023, piece: “‘Terminator Zones’ on distant planets could harbor life.

A “terminator zone” is a dividing line on a planet that always has one side facing its star and the other side in constant darkness. On the dark side of the planet, temperatures would always be extremely low, causing any liquid water to freeze. On the planet’s dayside, temperatures would be scorching hot, causing any liquid water to evaporate. The terminator zone, where the dark meets the light, has the potential to have temperatures suitable for liquid water and, thus, for extra-terrestrial (ET) life. These types of planets do not occur in our Solar System but are common enough among planets orbiting the stars seen in our night sky. 

So what should we think about this search for ET? Well, we know all of Creation has been affected by Man’s fall into sin. The key question then is, would God allow intelligent life on other planets to be judged because of Man’s fall on this planet? That seems implausible. However, even if intelligent extra-terrestrial life is unlikely from a biblical perspective, there wouldn’t seem to be any biblical reason to rule out the possibility of non-intelligent lifeforms existing outside of Earth. 

As Christians, we can view UCI’s work and other studies like it with curiosity, and also a lot of skepticism. Secular scientists look around our planet and see an abundance of life, so they presume that life coming into being is relatively simple. However, if it is so simple, then why can’t they find life anywhere else? Surely, it has to be somewhere out there! So they begin the cycle of searching, possible discovery, and eventual failure. Then their desperate search begins anew. And as it does, Christians can simply sit back. We have nothing to prove, and no need to find extra-terrestrial life – unlike evolution, our biblical worldview doesn’t require (or rule out) life on other planets. 

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.

News, Science - Creation/Evolution

Why haven't we heard from ET?

Some 70 years ago physicist Enrico Fermi looked up at the stars and wondered where everyone was at. With billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, it seemed inconceivable to him that ours would be the only planet to evolve life. So where was everyone? Fermi's Paradox His query is now called Fermi's Paradox, and on March 18 a group of about 60 scientists met in Paris to share their latest theories as to why we haven't heard from any of our galactic neighbors. Live Science's Mindy Weisberger shared some of their creative ideas: The "zoo hypothesis" - Earth is like a galactic animal reserve where aliens are leaving us alone to be observed in our natural habitat. We've been quarantined - aliens know about us, but don't like us. Aliens are trapped by their superplanets' intense gravity and they can't come out to meet us. Aliens have come and gone, dying off before we had a chance to connect with them. Three days after the Paris conference Cosmos dug deeper into Fermi's Paradox with an even more vexing question: where are all the "von Newmann probes"? Von Newmann probe What's a von Newmann probe, you ask? Well, back in the 1960s, mathematician John von Newmann argued that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to build a space probe that could mine raw materials on other planets and use those to make replicas of itself. These replicas would, in turn, build other copies. And as the process repeated, the number and spread of these self-replicating "von Newmann probes" would expand exponentially until, as Cosmos' Lauren Fuge put it, "in a relatively short space of time – perhaps as little as 10 million years – the galaxy would be teeming with these exploratory machines." But there are no hordes, teeming or otherwise. So, again, where is everyone? The Cosmos article offered, as a possible explanation, astrophysicist Duncan Forgan's "predator-prey hypothesis," soon to be published in an upcoming issue of the International Journal of Astrobiology. Forgan argues that "self-replication could result in encoding errors” and that maybe some of these coding errors could lead to some of these probes taking a predatory turn. If they did, then perhaps the reason we don't see these teeming hordes is because the predatory probes are hunting down and destroying the other probes. Hmmm.... While these various hypotheses make for incredibly creative speculation, they all share one thing in common: there are no facts to back them up. In fact, the only "evidence" for any of these theories is that aliens haven't contacted us. So why did scientists bother meeting to swap what amounts to untestable, unverifiable, just-so stories? Why did Live Science and other media outlets bother covering the Paris event? And why did Cosmos think Forgan's theory worth sharing?  They covered them because these stories – to the undiscerning – seem to offer an explanation to Fermi's Paradox and the problem it presents to evolutionary theory. But they're just stories. And what does it say about the theory if its defenders are willing to hype stories that the public will mistake for scientific, factual, or evidence-based? If luck can do it, why not the best and brightest? Here's a different sort of hypothesis to consider: what if ET just isn't out there? What if life, instead of being easy to come by, only happens via miraculous means? And God only did so here on Earth? It's worth noting that there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against the possibility of life being on other planets. It would be hard to reconcile intelligent life with the Bible – here on Earth all Mankind fell through Adam, and Jesus became Man to save us, so how could intelligent aliens have any part of that? But there wouldn’t seem a biblical problem with microscopic or even animal life existing elsewhere in the universe. But while the Bible allows for life on other planets, evolution would seem to demand it – if life can just happen, then someone else should be out there. It's only when life is miraculous that it becomes understandable that it might be rare. Now here's a question for our evolutionary friends: if we suppose that dumb, unplanned, undirected luck can create life, why can't the world's most brilliant minds, using available blueprints (from living creatures), and working with quadrillions-of-calculations-per-second supercomputers, in laboratories staffed with every device and chemical they could possibly want, manage to make even a single living cell? If living things can come about by chance, why hasn't anyone created them on purpose? Looking at evolutionists' still-lifeless labs we can't help but ask again: where is everyone? ***** In 2013 cartoonist Zach Weinersmith crafted a cartoon and gave the talk below on his "Infantapaulting Hypothesis" in which he theorized that the reasons babies are so aerodynamic is because they used to be catapulted into neighboring villages, to increase their chances of finding a mate among a more genetically diverse population. He was satirizing the tendency among evolutionists to indulge in "just-so stories" - to indulge in creative hypotheses that might fit the available evidence but which are not testable. If a fellow who still believes in Darwin's theory can be this brilliant, insightful, and hilarious in exposing evolutionary flaws, can creationists take this further and be even funnier?    ...