In the Scientific American blog "Life, Unbounded", Caleb A. Scharf asks,"Are we alone in the Universe?" :
But the fascinating thing is how we tend to fall into either camp A or camp B, and how strongly we feel about our answers.
... The impasse would be broken if we could detect life with an independent origin elsewhere - either in the solar system or farther beyond - yet that's a challenge that remains unmet.
... In all of these examples, the non-detection of life (whether as fossils or as chemical signatures) is unlikely to eliminate the possibility of life in these places - we simply won't be able to be that thorough.
It seems to me the search for extraterrestrial life
isn't than much different than the search for God.
In both cases believers claim the absence of evidence
just means the search should continue.
In response to this article I emailed my thoughts
to the author (but have yet to receive an answer):
Would the impasse be broken if we could create life (from non-life)
here on earth?
Why can't we mimic the conditions necessary here on earth for
single-celled microbial life to be created in a laboratory?
If it was done once, why not again? Also if we know what
conditions were necessary, wouldn't it narrow down where else
to look for such conditions? What prevents us from doing that?
Even if life is a series of low probability events, can't we make
it more probable in an experimental setup? Is it too difficult
to create the conditions or is it that we just don't know what
the conditions are and how to do it?
If we can never prove that life does not exist elsewhere, isn't
it a matter of faith that it does? How is that different than
a religious belief that god exists?
If you don't have the time to answer me directly, perhaps you
can address these issues in part 2 or later? Thanks for your
attention.