Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Wonders of Creation: The Astronomy Book
by Dr. Jonathan Henry

US $16.00
View Item
Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered
by Alex Williams, John Hartnett

US $17.00
View Item
Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the evolution connection (updated & expanded)
by Gary Bates

US $10.00
View Item
Our Created Solar System DVD
by Spike Psarris

US $19.00
View Item

Has the Kepler spacecraft found an ‘alien world’?

by

Published: 15 December 2011(GMT+10)
Kepler spacecraft

Courtesy NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech

News reports are awash with spectacular claims that NASA’s planet-hunting Kepler spacecraft has discovered an extraterrestrial world called ‘Kepler 22b’.1 It is so named because it orbits the star Kepler 22, which is classified as a ‘G-type’ star, as is our sun, although ours is slightly larger and hotter.

Such hyped-up alien reports seem to be a regular feature nowadays, and as such, it certainly convinces the public into thinking that our universe must be replete with intelligent life. Indeed, NASA would love people to believe this (it’s certainly what NASA pushes). Because they are a publicly-funded agency, they rely upon being relevant in the public mindset. Indeed, US Congressman Lamar Smith, indicated that “Funding should match public interest … ”.2 The most popular entertainment genre today is science fiction, and most science fiction has evolution occurring on other worlds as its central theme (think Avatar, Star Wars and especially Star Trek, for example). The claims of alien-hosting worlds is actually in the realm of science fiction, not science fact.

The Kepler observatory launched in 2009 and cost $US 600 million. But has this massive investment actually spawned anything useful for mankind?

NASA’s Origins program is dedicated to looking for habitable planets that might harbor life. Their endeavours spawned a new field of research called ‘astrobiology’, which is to specifically search for the evolution of life wherever it might occur in the universe. Even in this area, a public relations agenda supports their research. Former Head of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, Bruce Runnegar, once stated about their astrobiology efforts, “It’s a mission that the taxpayers can understand and support … . Everybody wants to know where we came from and whether or not we are alone in the universe.”3

It seems ironic then that NASA spends millions of dollars looking for microbes on Mars as a means of trying to figure out how life might have evolved on Earth. Yet the earth is replete with billions of fully-functioning biological organisms, each containing encyclopedias of complex coded information in their DNA, and NASA can’t figure it out from these. Even the simplest organism on the earth—a bacterium called Mycoplasma—has 580,000 specifically-arranged DNA ‘letters’!

Planet hunting … but why?

The public relations machine only aids the real agenda behind the planet-hunting. In a word, it’s ‘evolution’. Quite simply, because they believe life evolved on the earth they also believe it must have evolved elsewhere, particularly if they believe the universe is 14 billion years old based on their belief in a big bang.

The Kepler observatory launched in 2009 and cost $US 600 million. Before it started searching the heavens, only about 700 extrasolar planets were thought to exist. At time of writing, it is claimed that Kepler has found 2,326 potential planets. But has this massive investment actually spawned anything useful for mankind?

What did they actually find?

Although many extrasolar planets are assumed to exist, we should keep in mind the methods used to detect them. They are presumed to exist through indirect methods of observation. In the case of this latest find, Kepler 22b was detected using the transit method. This is where the planet’s host or nearby star’s light is seen to dim when the alleged planet passes in front of it and between our line of sight from the earth. We have not seen the surface of a planet directly. In fact, until recently, not seen stars as anything but points of light. Only in 1996 did the Hubble Space Telescope see “the first direct picture of the surface of a star other than the Sun”—the red supergiant Betelgeuse, 1000 times the sun’s diameter. However, in 2008, a planet was observed from direct light reflection around the big, close, white star Fomalhaut.

The reason for the excitement in this latest find is its presumed potential to harbor life. Most extrasolar planets are massive (which makes them easier to detect), and the enormous gravity on these planets would make life impossible. Many of these humungous-sized planets (many times the size of Jupiter) might even be gas giants and not Earth-like rocky planets at all (we can’t tell). However, Kepler 22b’s size is presumed to be approximately 2.4 times the mass of our Earth. And its distance from its host sun is about 15% less than the earth is to our own sun. This puts Kepler 22b right into what is called the ‘Goldilocks zone’. This means it is just the right size and distance from its star, just like the earth (which is assumed to be in the right spot by accident). News reports are going as far as to say that “This new Earth could have oceans and continents.”4

At the time of its discovery 581 G was believed to be the planet with the greatest likelihood of having conditions suitable for life. Now it is believed not to exist at all!

However, this is not the first time that ‘Goldilocks zone’ planets are said to have been found. So, much of what we could say about such claims has been written before. We recommend you read the following short articles for insights into the problems.

  1. Hosing down the hype. New planet find has ET hopefuls in a frenzy (about planet Gliese 581c).

    In the case of 581c, much of the hype has indeed been watered down, although we only ever hear of the spectacular initial claims, and not the later retractions. Researchers now believe that 581c is uninhabitable and has temperatures similar to Venus.5

  2. Extrasolar planet 100% likely to have life? (about planet Gliese 581g).

    At the time of its discovery, 581g was believed to be the planet with the greatest likelihood of having conditions suitable for life. Now it is believed not to exist at all! See Doubts about hyped-up planet. Does Gliese 581g exist at all?

Should Christians be concerned by this?

Absolutely not. There is no reason to presume that God created astronomical objects differently elsewhere in the universe. Most of our own solar system contains other planets of varying sizes besides the earth and they are all uninhabitable. In fact, our own Mars is in a better ‘Goldilocks’ range than any of these other hopefuls and there is no life on it.

Furthermore, on theoretical grounds, there is no reason for an ‘Earth-like’ planet to be anything like Earth. Dr Bruce Fegley, professor of earth and planetary sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, has run computer simulations on extrasolar planets. He concluded, “I think that the atmospheres of extrasolar Earth-like planets would be more like Mars or Venus than the Earth.”6

The farther out we look, it only affirms what the prophet Isaiah said a long time ago in Isaiah 45:18:

For this is what the LORD says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

We can deduce from Scripture that indeed the earth is unique and that there will never be any finds of intelligent life (in the order of mankind, that is, morally self-aware). We are aware that most Christians probably have no problem with the idea that God may have created life on other planets, but we need a careful application of Scripture here. We therefore feel it is important to read Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?

Christians should not be concerned that the Bible can be falsified (proved wrong) on matters that we can absolutely deduce from Scripture. The search for life on other planets stems from an evolutionary scientific rationale that seeks to explain how the universe came to be without God anyway.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References

  1. Pullout quote A ‘major milestone’ in search for Earth’s twin, www.msnbc.msn.com, 7 December, 2011. Return to text.
  2. Quoted in: Search for Life Out There Gains Respect, Bit by Bit, www.nytimes.com/, 8 July 2003. Return to text.
  3. Astrobiology Isn’t a Dirty Word Anymore,” www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/jan/prof2_040119.html, January 19, 2004. Return to text.
  4. Kepler 22b—the ‘new Earth’—could have oceans and continents, scientists claim, www.telegraph.co.uk/ , 7 December, 2011. Return to text.
  5. Gliese 581, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581, 7 December, 2011. Return to text.
  6. Computer Models Suggest Planetary And Extrasolar Planet Atmospheres, ScienceDaily.com, 19 June 2007. Return to text.

The article you just read is free, but the staff time working on it … isn’t. Consider a small gift to keep this site going. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Jack C., Australia, 15 December 2011

Another point that’s missed is if there are millions upon millions of other planets populated with intelligent life, then how come we haven’t received a radio signal from even just one of them? Surely some a of them at least would have developed similar technologies as ours to communicate with radio waves. I find the total lack of any evidence of alien radio signals as proof they don’t exist.

Gary Bates responds

Indeed! Something known as the Fermi Paradox means that, according to the idea of life evolving on other worlds, the universe should be teeming with life. So we should be able to hear them. Hmm! It’s strangely quite out there though! The SETI Project has, in fact, been searching for many years. Of course they have found nothing. Their excuse would simply be that “The Universe is a big place and we just haven’t looked in the right spot yet.” Both of these aforementioned subjects are covered in-depth in my book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.

Just a minor point though. If you say that the lack of signals from space is proof. What if they did get a signal? Of course they have claimed this in the past and on one occasion it was caused by a microwave oven in their lunch room. Our starting point or proof that there might be no life should be the Bible. See Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?

With regard to searching the heavens looking for signals we also have these articles about SETI. SETI coming in from the cold of space, SETI religion or science?

I hope this helps.

Paul T., United Kingdom, 15 December 2011

Firstly, thank you all for the effort you put into creating so many articles and in dealing with so many issues relevant to the origin and history of life and the universe.

In your article on the Kelper Spacecraft, I think that the search for possible life-bearing planets is not only about showing evolution working on other planets. It is also a means where if there are serious issues arising from proving evolution on the earth, why not just move the whole process to the stars? If intelligent design were to be admitted by the evolutionary believers, what’s to stop them saying that an alien race designed us but that they themselves were born out of the evolutionary process on another planet more suitable to producing life? And if they can’t find a nearby planet that is suitable for life, there is still a whole universe of possible planets.

Like the scenario of millions of years, it can all be moved to millions of possible planets. Whatever the reasoning, if it excludes God then I am sure it will become plausible.

People are often eager to tell of their own theories, but reluctant to examine the counter-arguments to those theories. I believe that sometimes we become so attached to our own ideas and understanding it is hard to prize our fingers from our misguided beliefs to consider understanding alternative arguments.

For the Christian however, it is by the revelation of the Holy Spirit of our need for salvation and the belief that provides that salvation that keeps us centred on the Bible. Without the truth in the Word of God, our faith is futile. However, in my personal life in questioning origins and even church doctrine, what has always pulled me back to reality was a heart knowledge that Christ has saved and redeemed me. Something I have tried and tested in my daily walk but is centred in knowing that I am forgiven. For me it is not so much about an opinion, it is more about knowing that I have been saved and trusting in God. Yes it comes down to this, where evolution tries to make sense of the world without God, I know in my heart and in the life I live that God exists so naturally I try to make sense of a world that includes God.

Lane C., United States, 20 December 2011

ET’s are everywhere. The Angels (faithful and fallen alike) are ET’s all with special powers. The earth has been inhabited for numerous eons with different creatures from long ago. The problem with most “christians” is they don’t know how to rightly divide the word of truth. True mankind is approximately 6,000 years old but, the earth is billions of years old and, by the way, so is the universe. Does anyone really believe that GOD would create anything cold, dark and dead? He would not and could not!!! Real “change” is coming soon, I hope you’re ready …

Thank you for your comments. All the same, you should not assume that you’re one of the few enlightened ones and that most of us haven’t researched the issue. See for example UFOlogy: the world s fastest-growing scientific religion? and Prepare ye the way the aliens are coming! Popular fantasy becomes cultural fact.

It’s also hard to believe that we are scare-quote “christians” for agreeing with Christ Himself that God created man “from the beginning of creation”, not billions of years after the beginning as you advocate. See the timeline in Jesus and the age of the world.

Christina V., New Zealand, 24 June 2012

What I can never understand about the search for ET is that the evolution of life is so unlikely. The chances of life evolving at all are very unlikely. Regarding us, they say, “Well, we’re here, so it must have happened, unlikely as it is,” but for it to happen twice or multiple times seems ridiculous. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Jonathan Sarfati responds

Indeed, a classic example of the informal logical fallacy of begging the question: assuming evolution to prove evolution!

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
8376
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.