Is There Life After Mars?
Ernest Samuel Llime - Woodhaven

The Viking mission, having landed on Mars quite some time ago, has shattered the dream of millions; all the people fond of Percival Lowell’s vision of “networks of canals” and Martians living on the red planet. Alas, the probe’s evidence, “ . . . seems to weigh against finding even microbes there.”1 Nevertheless, the possibilities seem endless; after all, Mars is just a stone’s throw away from Earth. The Universe however, though perhaps not infinite, is of an almost incomprehensible size. So what else could be out there? And is it intelligent?
There seem to be three different groups with three seemingly different answers to these questions, involving three very dissimilar ideologies. Interestingly enough, they are all affirmative in spite of their unequal and contradictory nature of their basic assumptions. Even though this paper is concerned mainly with the scientific point of view, it is only fair as well as a part of the scientific process of investigation, to dwell somewhat on the other views. It is also fair to point out that the Scientific Method is going to be employed in looking at the evidence, since it is the only one that can prove its workability.
The first group that is going to be discussed can justifiably be called the UFO-logian group because of its association with those kinds of phenomena. The UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) is a generally accepted acronym for a series of (thus far) scientifically unexplainable events. In most cases the (photographic) evidence is of very bad or (written or verbal) mystical quality, and it is without exception unpredictable and non-duplicable. The bad quality of the evidence and its sometimes mysterious disappearance are explained away as results of the activity of space people (the UFO crews) because for instance, “ . . . they would find some people worshipping them as ‘gods’ which they would not allow.”2 or by some sort of official plot, “[Captain Edward Rupert] . . . said he had been ordered by the Air Force to destroy any reports that looked authentic . . . "3 In a lot of cases, space people have been reported as having been seen, and even having carried conversations with earthlings, “I have had other saucer experiments, some with space people directly or face to face . . . “4 is an example of that. Another one involves a conversation between a gentleman named Jack Schwartz and an alien, that took place in the latter’s car, “ . . . we come from a tribe of people who crash landed in a rocket ship on Earth thousands of years ago.”5 “E.T.’s” do not seem to like being photographed and no clear pictures of them are available; in a lot of cases they reportedly disappear, as in the case of Mr. Schwartz, who lost contact with “XB-15” shortly after their conversation.
A number of loosely related sub-groups make this one up but they are basically similar in kind and their differences are mainly in the type and degree of importance and/or mysticism that they ascribe to UFO’s.
The second group is much larger, most probably the largest group of people that can be included in any one loose association; it is composed of individuals who believe in a non-mechanistic creation by a higher entity, a creator. This group can certainly be called the religious group and it is included in this paper for two reasons; one of them is that their most basic tenet, the existence of one or more gods, is actually answering our main question affirmatively and without any shadow of doubt. After all, one or more gods (depending on the individual religion) have created the Earth and even the Universe and therefore, by definition, they are most certainly of extraterrestrial origin. If the number of supporters were to be considered the deciding factor in accepting it, then this should most certainly be the prevailing one. This group is divided into more faction and sub-groups than any other and one of them is the second reason for including it here. The faction in question has been very active in the United States lately in advocating a pseudo-science called creationism. This is an important topic because of its relevancy to the subject, and because it is actually employing the Scientific Method in trying to disprove many of science’s discoveries.
Robert V. Gentry is one of the scientists who subscribe to a creationist view of the Universe. He is involved in researching the halo rings left in various rocks by radioactive isotopes; his research leads him to believe that, “ . . . the Earth may only be on the order of 10,000 years old – a factor 4.5 x 105 smaller than the age most geochronologists give it.”6 It appears that his research is very well regarded by his colleagues and only his conclusions are disputed.
Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe is another creationism believer; his background is very different from Mr. Gentry’s and so are his views. Mr. Wickramasinghe is a Hindu raised in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and he says, “ . . . he doesn’t even share the basic premise of the Christian faith, much less the Christian fundamentalists’ trust in the general ‘inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs’.”7 That is actually Mr. Gentry’s belief and it is probably mentioned in the original, in order to point out that this is indeed a different opinion on the subject. “Mr. Wickramasinghe currently heads the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at University College in Cardiff, Wales. And for the past 20 years, his work has tended to focus on inquiries into the possible composition of interstellar dust.”8 He is quoted as saying, “Two years ago, Sir Fred Hoyle and I reached the conclusion that a whole body of astronomical data pointed to microorganisms being present on a colossal scale in space – some 1052individual cells being present in our Galaxy.”9 Mr. Wickramasinghe is further saying that, “Other experiments using ‘contamination-proof’ techniques identified 17 amino acids within the Murchison meteorite;”10 Amino acids are some of the building blocks of life and, based on that, and on the detection of living cells in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, he is concluding that life came to Earth from outer space. When speaking about evolution Mr. Wickramasinghe is saying that, “ . . . the probability of discovering this set of conditions crucial to life by random shuffling is one in 1040,000, a number that exceeds by many powers of 10, the number of all atoms in the entire observable Universe.” (Therefore, he is,) “ . . . compelled to seek a non-mechanistic ‘creator’ for life.”11
Both scientists have testified in a court of law, on behalf of Arkansas, in defense of creation science. U.S. District Judge William Overton has, “In his opinion of the case issued Jan. 5, [1982] concluded, ‘creation science is not science’.”12
The research mentioned by Mr. Wickramasinghe has been undertaken by H. D. Pfulg of the University of Giessen in West Germany. At the time of the article, the results, “ . . . are to be published soon.”13 The data are quite valid and will serve to introduce us to our third group, the scientists. They have a lot of circumstantial evidence and well thought out theories but, so far, no direct data on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. The line of approach pursued by science is based on the premise that, this kind of life would have to mimic the development of life on Earth; this is mainly because of the fact that Earth life is the only kind of life discovered so far and therefore, the only measuring stick available. Thus, one of the first necessities for our kind of life is a planet. “We have to assume . . . that complex life must grow and evolve to intelligence on planets orbiting stable stars.”14 The detection of planets orbiting other solar systems, is a very difficult task however, in the words of David C. Black, “We now possess the technological capability to mount a comprehensive search for other planetary systems.”15 Such searches have been going on for a while on a smaller scale, and of all the stars investigated to date, the most promising one seems to be Barnard’s Star; A study of the shift in the star’s center of mass conducted by Mr. Black together with G. C. J. Suffolk, “ . . . assumes three planets for Barnard’s Star.”16 And so, it seems that even though no planets have been observed outside of our solar system, their probable existence is a generally accepted scientific fact.
Other relevant investigations are the ones being made into the possibility of spontaneous life generation; even though we have seen some evidence that seems point to the existence of life in places other than Earth, which is still not conclusive enough. Also, it does not offer an explanation for life and therefore somewhat suspect. Many experiments on the generation of life have been conducted so far; Speaking at a conference on communicating with extraterrestrial intelligence (CETI), Carl Sagan is describing such a series, “ . . . with this encouragement we can do the experiment one more time and mix together a mixture of methane, ammonia and water, supply it with energy and see what molecules are constructed.” (And later on,) “ . . . a wide variety of such experiments have been performed . . . and what we find is that not only are amino acids made in high yield but also the nucleotide bases and sugars, and indeed all the small fundamental building blocks of biochemistry.”17
Mr. Sagan is presenting a formulation of the “ . . . number of technological civilizations in the Milky Way at or beyond our level of technological advance.”18 The formulation as devised by Frank Drake is as follows: N = R*fpnef1f;fc1. 19
This formulation is the central issue of the CETI conference and its factors are discussed at length by an international panel of scientists. The applicable ones are: the rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of our Galaxy, the fraction of stars which have planetary systems, the mean number of planets within such planetary systems which are ecologically suitable for life, the fraction of such planets on which the origin of life actually occurs and the fraction of such planets on which intelligence arises. (For a fuller development, please refer to the proceeds of the CETI conference.) This formula is revealing the extent of extraterrestrial intelligence. Most of the factors in our formula can only be replaced by probable figures; at the present time these probabilities are not even statistical because we do not have any data at all on some of them. What we are talking about are subjective probabilities; their nature is defined by Terrence Fine thus, “The subjective view . . . encourages the holder to use his informal judgement, beliefs, experience in arriving at probability estimates . . . “20 In a summation of the conference which expresses very nicely science’s position on this matter Mr Fine says, “We would judge that the concept of subjective probability is at present the only basis upon which probability statements can be made about the extraterrestrial intelligent life.”21
In conclusion, the shortness of the UFO section may seem strange but that is not for lack of written reports; on the contrary, this kind of literature is available in enormous quantities and there are even specialty book stores that deal in UFO writings exclusively. Nevertheless, the two samples used are typical and explanatory; space people can be talked about but their existence cannot be proven as yet, they have to be seen in order to be believable.
The religion section is somewhat longer but fairly poor in religion per se. The reason is very similar; a creator’s existence cannot be proven yet either, and existing evidence can at best be described as circumstantial and given to different interpretations. In addition to that, the mystery is what makes God, a God and not just another ET. Also, one of the basic requirements of most religions is faith without inquiry.
And thus, again, we come back to the Scientific Method; it may not be the best possible system of thinking, but it is the best humanity has so far devised for coping with natural phenomena. Also, it is the one that can devise working models, of situations and events, which are taking into consideration all the known factors that are relevant. And most important, it is the only method of basing conclusions on evidence that is measurable, and on experiments that can be duplicated. As we have seen, is on the verge of proving the existence of life in outer space and it has certainly accepted the possibility of extraterrestrial life. The search for it is an ongoing task and the proof may not be that far in the future.

< Table of Contents

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Black, David C. “Detecting Extrasolar Planetary Systems.” The Planetary Report, 3 (March/April 1983), 9-10.
Black, David C. and Suffolk G. C. J. “Concerning the Planetary System of Barnard’s Star.” Icarus, 19 (1973), 353-373
Brin, David. “Xenology: The New Science of Asking, ‘Who’s out There?’.” Analog, 103 (May 1983), 64-82.
Easton, Thomas A. “The Future of Biological Engineering.” Analog, 102 (November 1982), 42-49.
Gatewood, George D. and others. “In Search of Other Worlds.” The Planetary Report, 3 (March/April 1983), 8,15.
Gulkis, Samuel and Wolfe, John H. “The NASA SETI Program.” The Planetary Report, 3 (March/April 1983), 6-7
Mundo, Laura, The Mundo UFO Report. New York: Vantage Press Inc., 1982.
Nicholson, Ian. Astronomy. 1970; rpt. New York: Bantam, 1972.
Raloff, Janet. “They Call it Creation Science.” Science News, 121 (January 1982), 44-46.
Rosenfeld, Albert. “Lif ein the Lab.” GEO, 3 (April 1981), 38-62.
Sagan, Carl, ed. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence CETI. 1973, rpt. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977.
Wilson, Colin. The Occult. New York: Random House, 1971.
Woodcock, Gordon R. “To the Stars!” Analog, 103 (June 1983), 38-50.

© 1985 Ernest Samuel Llime All Rights Reserved.