Jeff Webster (
Thu, 11 Apr 96 17:35:52 CST

Jim Turner wrote:

I'm curious, can you tell us what the primary evidence the astrophysicists used
to support there belief of life on other planets? Did they use probability? If
so was it based on the existence of a high number of planets, or was it more
evolutionary? Also how sophisticated do they think these lifeforms are? One
possible scenario is that life is highly possible throughout the universe, but
man is a unique spirit-being. Just a thought.

Actually, one of the reasons that I posted the question was because I only saw
the latter part of the program, and was astounded at the confidence of these
astrophysicists in their assertions. I could not glean from their brief remarks
the reasoning that had led them to make such statements, but I suspect they were
arguing on the basis of probability, and assuming evolution, of course.

Also, I agree that arguing from the immensity of the universe to the
unlikelihood that there is anything special about mankind is a non
sequiter.(Would philosophers call this a category mistake?) Peters' willingness
to accept the possiblity that there is life elsewhere created in God's image was
a bit surprising to me, though. He did say that Christ came to redeem all of
nature, and so that would include the entire created realm. If there is such
sentient life, however, (speaking hypothetically) that would cause one to
rethink the doctrine and significance of the incarnation. Nevertheless, holding
to the Christian view of humanity's uniqueness does not contradict any
conclusion drawn from the immensity of the universe. The theatre of God's glory
is elaborate indeed.

Jeff Webster