So we may not be alone. What does that do to religion?
While there was barely a news outlet globally that will not have reported the Pope's passing, there was another event last week that raised even more profound questions about the nature of human existence, that merited barely a flicker of attention.
The discovery of gas particles on the edge of our galaxy provided the 'strongest evidence yet' of the existence of life on another planet.
Read more by Carlos Alba
Scientists at Cambridge University's Institute of Astronomy, using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), have detected molecules surrounding a planet named K2-18b, which on Earth are only produced by simple organisms.
Their research indicates the existence of a chemical signature matching dimethyl sulphide (DMS) or dimethyl disulphide (DMDS), both of which are known by-products of marine phytoplankton and bacteria on Earth, making their discovery a potentially significant development in the search for extraterrestrial life.
Professor Nikku Madhusudhan, the lead researcher, said he was surprised at the amount of the gas apparently detected in a single observation window, which is thousands of times higher than that on Earth.
"If the association with life is real, then this planet will be teeming with life," he added.
"If we confirm that there is life on K2-18b, it should basically confirm that life is very common in the galaxy."
Before we start brushing up on our Klingon, there are some important caveats. The scientists made clear they need to collect more data to bolster their case. And, even if they do find more conclusive evidence of life on K2-18b, the planet is 700 trillion miles from Earth meaning that, even if we could travel at the speed of light, it would take us 124 years to get there.
Nevertheless, the discovery has the potential to be the most important development in natural science since Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
If, as Prof Madhusudhan suggests, life could be 'very common in the galaxy', it would fatally undermine the fundamental premise of every world religion, that we and this planet exist at the notional centre of the Universe, both as the creation of a higher being.
Rather, it would suggest that we are a local planet, located in an insignificant corner of a Universe which potentially hosts an infinite number of other life-bearing planets.
The theistic argument rests on the notion that the starting point for life could only have come from a higher intelligence. It exploits the self-imposed limits applied by science which, unlike with religion, doesn't base its findings on absolutes.
Even with a level of certainty of 99.7%, Prof Madhusudhan and his team are not at the standard required to claim a discovery. For that, he and his researchers need to be about 99.99999% sure that their results are correct and not a fluke reading.
Theists require nowhere near such rigour to be able to claim, for example, that Christ rose from the dead or that the prophet Muhammed was the last messenger of God.
In the same week that these potentially earth-shattering findings were announced, most media outlets focused instead on the 11 minutes in space spent by six female friends, relatives, and hangers-on of the billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
It says something about our priorities and the limits of our horizons that we prefer to focus on the musings of pop singer Katy Perry – 'I felt so connected to love' – and Bezos's fiancée Lauren Sánchez – 'the Earth looked so quiet' – than on the very nature and meaning of life.
While this discreditable exercise in cash-burning futility merited media exposure on a scale similar to the Pope's death, with a couple of notable exceptions coverage of the Cambridge discovery was mostly limited to specialist platforms like Space, New Scientist and Nature.
While Evolution News carried the story, it was conspicuously absent from any religious publications.
Granted The Tablet and the Scottish Catholic Observer had other things on their mind, but you'd have thought the news would be of some interest to such outlets, if only to stand their corner.
Given the centrality of religion to so many of the world's problems and to so much bloodshed and suffering, I'm never less than surprised at the lack of questioning in common discourse of its absurdity.
Aside from the current war in the Middle East and the devastation wrought by Islamic terrorism, there is the long history of sectarian violence in India and the culpability of the Catholic Church, and its stance on contraception, in the spread of AIDS in Africa – the list goes on.
Much of Donald Trump's regressive policy programme – including his opposition to abortion and his ban on transgender people serving in the military – is aimed at serving an evangelical Christian electoral base.
The death of Pope Francis will have prompted moments of deep introspection for many (Image: PA) His administration's heavy reliance on white Christian nationalists and prosperity gospel preachers in key positions, has raised concerns about its impact on American democracy.
Both Obama and Biden included leaders from diverse faiths, including Muslims and Sikhs, in their administrations and faith-based offices.
Trump, on the other hand, has surrounded himself with individuals who promote a narrow and exclusionary vision of Christianity, often associated with anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigration, and anti-racial equality stances.
Irrespective of whether K2-18b is the start of a new era of natural scientific discovery, we should, at least, be more sceptical of religion and the powerful place it occupies.
In this country, we could start by insisting that religious education in schools focuses principally on fostering a neutral and objective understanding of religion as a cultural and historical phenomenon.
While it's important for students to learn about different religions, this should be approached academically, similar to subjects like history or literature, rather than as an attempt to endorse or promote any specific faith. The Pope may be dead, long live enlightenment and progress.
Carlos Alba is a journalist, author, and PR consultant at Carlos Alba Media. His latest novel, There's a Problem with Dad, explores the issue of undiagnosed autism among older people
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
Planet Nine? Not quite, but some astronomers think they've spotted a new dwarf planet
A possible new dwarf planet has been discovered at the edge of our solar system, so far-flung that it takes around 25,000 years to complete one orbit around the sun. The object, known as 2017 OF201, was found by researchers at the Institute for Advanced Study and Princeton University who were searching for 'Planet Nine,' a hypothetical planet larger than Earth that is thought to orbit beyond Neptune. Some astronomers theorize that a mysterious ninth planet, which so far remains undetected, could explain an unusual clustering of objects and other anomalies observed in the outer solar system. In searching for the elusive Planet Nine, researchers instead turned up a different resident in our cosmic backyard. 'It's not very different from how Pluto was discovered,' said Sihao Cheng, a member at the Institute for Advanced Study who led the research team. 'This project was really an adventure.' If confirmed, the newfound dwarf planet would be what Cheng calls an 'extreme cousin' of Pluto. The findings were published on the preprint website arXiv and have not yet been peer-reviewed. Cheng and his colleagues estimate that 2017 OF201 measures about 435 miles across — significantly smaller than Pluto, which measures nearly 1,500 miles across. A dwarf planet is classified as a celestial body that orbits the sun that has enough mass and gravity to be mostly round, but unlike other planets, has not cleared its orbital path of asteroids and other objects. Eritas Yang, one of the study's co-authors and a graduate student at Princeton University, said that one of 2017 OF201's most interesting features is its extremely elongated orbit. At its farthest point from the sun, the object is more than 1,600 times more distant than the Earth is to the sun. The researchers found the dwarf planet candidate by meticulously sifting through a huge data set from a telescope in Chile that was scanning the universe for evidence of dark energy. By cobbling together observations over time, the researchers identified a moving object with migrations that followed a clear pattern. 2017 OF201 is likely one of the most distant visible objects in the solar system, but its discovery suggests there could be other dwarf planets populating that region of space. 'We were using public data that has been there for a long time,' said Jiaxuan Li, a study co-author and a graduate student at Princeton University. 'It was just hidden there.' Li said the object is close to the sun at the moment, which means the researchers need to wait about a month before they can conduct follow-up observations using ground-based telescopes. The scientists are also hopeful that they can eventually secure some time to study the object with the Hubble Space Telescope or the James Webb Space Telescope. In the meantime, Cheng said he hasn't given up searching for Planet Nine. The new discovery, however, may throw a wrench into some long-standing theories of the planet's existence. The hypothesis behind Planet Nine is that a planet several times the size of Earth in the outer solar system could explain why a group of icy objects seem to have unusually clustered orbits. 'Under the influence of Planet Nine, all objects that do not have this specific orbital geometry will eventually become unstable and get kicked out of the solar system,' Yang said. 2017 OF201's elongated orbit makes it an outlier from the clustered objects, but Yang's calculations suggest that the orbit of 2017 OF201 should remain stable over roughly the next billion years. In other words, 2017 OF201 likely would not be able to remain if Planet Nine does exist. But Yang said more research is needed, and the discovery of the new dwarf planet candidate is not necessarily a death knell for Planet Nine. For one, the simulations only used one specific location for Planet Nine, but scientists don't all agree on where the hypothetical planet lurks — if it's there at all. Konstantin Batygin, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology, proposed the existence of Planet Nine in a study published with his Caltech colleague Mike Brown in 2016. He said the discovery of 2017 OF201 doesn't prove or disprove the theory. The objects in the outer solar system that are likely to show a footprint of Planet Nine's gravity, Batygin said, are the ones where the closest points on their orbits around the sun are still distant enough that they don't strongly interact with Neptune. 'This one, unfortunately, does not fall into that category,' Batygin told NBC News. 'This object is on a chaotic orbit, and so when it comes to the question of 'What does it really mean for Planet Nine?' The answer is not very much, because it's chaotic.' Batygin said he was excited to see the new study because it adds more context to how objects came to be in the outer solar system, and he called the researchers' efforts mining public data sets 'heroic.' Cheng, for his part, said he hasn't abandoned hope of finding Planet Nine. 'This whole project started as a search for Planet Nine, and I'm still in that mode,' he said. 'But this is an interesting story for scientific discovery. Who knows if Planet Nine exists, but it can be interesting if you're willing to take some risks.'
Time Out
3 days ago
- Time Out
First look: The new Pedro Pascal-narrated space show in NYC
Let internet boyfriend Pedro Pascal be your guide on a tour of the universe. The famous actor is the narrator for a new space show at the American Museum of Natural History 's Hayden Planetarium titled Encounters in the Milky Way. The show debuts on Monday, June 9, but we got a sneak peek today. Encounters in the Milky Way takes a 20-minute voyage through outer space with stunning visualizations of dazzling stars, constellations and planets. Stirring music complements Pascal's narration, and you'll even feel your seats move as if you could blast off to space yourself. "On a clear night," Pascal says in opening the show, "a band of light stretches across the sky. The combined glow of billions of stars, partially obscured by great clouds of gas and dust: the majestic Milky Way. From Earth, it looks like we are at the center, and all these stars were all around us, but as astronomers learn to decipher celestial movement, we found our place in the cosmos." From there, Encounters in the Milky Way continues to explore movement: How Earth spins on its axis, giving us day and night; how seasons change; how constellations move over time; how even the Sun is part of this galactic migration. Encounters in the Milky Way, the Hayden Planetarium's seventh space show, is the first to focus on the story of this cosmic motion and how it impacts our solar system. While the show is a visual treat, it is based on firm scientific research, such as the European Space Agency's Gaia mission, which mapped nearly 2 billion stars in the Milky Way, and NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, which offers stunning views of galaxies millions of lightyears away. Astronomers, educators, science visualization experts, and artists worked together to create the show. For the first time in the history of the Hayden Planetarium Space Shows, a discovery was made during the production process. While fine-tuning a simulation of the Oort cloud, a vast expanse of icy material left over from the birth of our Sun, the Encounters in the Milky Way production team noticed a clear shape: a structure made of billions of comets that looked like a spiral-armed galaxy. This simulation revealed a cosmic structure that was previously unknown, and details about the finding were recently published in The Astrophysical Journal. As Jackie Faherty, senior research scientist in the museum's Astrophysics Department, explains it, researches theorized what Oort clouds look like, explored models and examined data. Then all of a sudden, they discovered a never-before-seen spiral shape. "Pop goes the orc cloud," she said during a preview event for the show. "There's so much to discover there." Perhaps viewers of Encounters in the Milky Way will someday make their own scientific discoveries. To Carter Emmart, the museum's director of astrovisualization, the immersive nature of the show helps fire up kids' imaginations. Wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation. "If this museum is a testament to anything, it's a testament to wonder," Emmart said at the show's preview. "I think wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation."
The Independent
29-05-2025
- The Independent
The truth is out there? Why the scientific community struggles to accept ‘proof' of alien life
The search for extraterrestrial life has long gone back and forth between scientific curiosity, public fascination and outright scepticism. Recently, scientists claimed the 'strongest evidence' of life on a distant exoplanet – a world outside our solar system. Grandiose headlines often promise proof that we are not alone, but scientists remain cautious. Is this caution unique to the field of astrobiology? In truth, major scientific breakthroughs are rarely accepted quickly. Newton's laws of motion and gravity, Wegener's theory of plate tectonics, and human-made climate change all faced prolonged scrutiny before achieving consensus. But does the nature of the search for extraterrestrial life mean that extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary evidence? We've seen groundbreaking evidence in this search beforehand, from claims of biosignatures (potential signs of life) in Venus's atmosphere to Nasa rovers finding 'leopard spots' – a potential sign of past microbial activity – in a Martian rock. Both stories generated a public buzz around the idea that we might be one step closer to finding alien life. But on further inspection, abiotic (non-biological) processes or false detection became more likely explanations. In the case of the exoplanet, K2-18 b, scientists working with data from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) announced the detection of gases in the planet's atmosphere – methane, carbon dioxide, and more importantly, two compounds called dimethyl sulphide (DMS) and dimethyl disulphide (DMDS). As far as we know, on Earth, DMS/DMDS are produced exclusively by living organisms. Their presence, if accurately confirmed in abundance, would suggest microbial life. The researchers even suggest there's a 99.4% probability that the detection of these compounds wasn't a fluke – a figure that, with repeat observations, could reach the gold standard for statistical certainty in the sciences. This is a figure known as five sigma, which equates to about a one in a million chance that the findings are a fluke. So why hasn't the scientific community declared this the discovery of alien life? The answer lies in the difference between detection and attribution, and in the nature of evidence itself. JWST doesn't directly 'see' molecules. Instead, it measures the way that light passes through or bounces off a planet's atmosphere. Different molecules absorb light in different ways, and by analysing these absorption patterns – called spectra – scientists infer what chemicals are likely to be present. This is an impressive and sophisticated method – but also an imperfect one. It relies on complex models that assume we understand the biological reactions and atmospheric conditions of a planet 120 light years away. The spectra suggesting the existence of DMS/DMDS may be detected because you cannot explain the spectrum without the molecule you've predicted, but it could also result from an undiscovered or misunderstood molecule instead. Climate comparison Given how momentous the conclusive discovery of extraterrestrial life would be, these assumptions mean that many scientists err on the side of caution. But is this the same for other kinds of science? Let's compare with another scientific breakthrough: the detection and attribution of human-made climate change. The relationship between temperature and increases in CO₂ was first observed by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1927. It was only taken seriously once we began to routinely measure temperature increases. But our atmosphere has many processes that feed CO₂ in and out, many of which are natural. So the relationship between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature may have been validated, but the attribution still needed to follow. Carbon has three so-called flavours, known as isotopes. One of these isotopes, carbon-14, is radioactive and decays slowly. When scientists observed an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide but a low volume of carbon-14, they could deduce that the carbon was very old – too old to have any carbon-14. Fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are composed of ancient carbon and thus are devoid of carbon-14. So the attribution of anthropogenic climate change was proven beyond reasonable doubt, with 97% acceptance among scientists. In the search for extraterrestrial life, much like climate change, there is a detection and attribution phase, which requires the robust testing of hypotheses and also rigorous scrutiny. In the case of climate change, we had in situ observations from many sources. This means roughly that we could observe these sources close up. The search for extraterrestrial life relies on repeated observations from the same sensors that are far away. In such situations, systematic errors are more costly. Further to this, both the chemistry of atmospheric climate change and fossil fuel emissions were validated with atmospheric tests under lab conditions from 1927 onwards. Much of the data we see touted as evidence for extraterrestrial life comes from light years away, via one instrument, and without any in situ samples. The search for extraterrestrial life is not held to a higher standard of scientific rigour, but it is constrained by an inability to independently detect and attribute multiple lines of evidence. For now, the claims about K2-18 b remain compelling but inconclusive. That doesn't mean we aren't making progress. Each new observation adds to a growing body of knowledge about the universe and our place in it. The search continues – not because we're too cautious, but because we are rightly so. Oliver Swainston is a Research Assistant at RAND Europe. Chris Carter is an Analyst on the Science and Emerging Technology Team at RAND Europe.
