Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Habitable Planets May Be Common

Posted by Hemos on from the maybe-counter-earth-exists dept.

swight1701 writes "New Scientist tells us, "one in four of the planetary systems identified to date outside the Solar System are capable of harbouring other Earths, say astrophysicists, a much higher proportion than anyone expected." Two seperate groups have come up with results that line up with each other, the latest one using simulations of 85 systems. Warm up the warp engines, time to go planet hopping!"

25 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. They say habitable... by doobie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They say their are habitable for life...why do we always assume every life form will be exactly like us and need our environment to thirve? For some other form of life they may thrive on Venus or Jupiter.

  2. Huh? by Quixote · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Quoting the article:
    The researchers found that around a quarter of the systems contained regions where life-friendly planets could in principle exist.

    If the requirement is that there be a "region" around the star where a planet could have water in liquid state all-year-round, wouldn't almost every star satisfy this? Every heat source has a distance at which it feels "nice" (as anyone who's been at a campfire can attest to).
    Maybe I'm missing something here (which has been known to happen :-)

  3. Rolling the dice by Ninja+Master+Gara · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Then we'll have to figure out just how rare liquid water is, oygen rich atmospheres etc etc

    1 in 4 might be good for balls of rock, but it doesn't quite match "Earth".

    --

    ---
    When I grow up, I want to be a kid again.
  4. intelligent life in the universe by cschieke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I took a college course called "Intelligent life in the universe" (god I loved college). Where we learned basically:

    1. What we know it takes to support life
    2. What living objects are typically made of (carbon based compounds)
    3. What percentage of stars have planets around them, what percentage of those planets are the proper distance away from the star the orbit (which changes based on the size of the star)
    4. a bunch of biology, and some other related stuff

    It boiled down to the idea that the universe is soo huge that IF we're the only intelligent life in the universe, that there must some type of "god" and if we're not, well then the evolutionary theories are probably fundamentally correct (doesn't mean there isn't "god", but not in the literal old testament sense).

    see, no real hard conclusiions only questions, cause there is always another level deeper to go.

  5. Habitable is a long way from hostipible by saskboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This isn't too surprising since all a planet has to have to be habitable is a small enough mass to not crush our bodies, ideally a natural radiation shield, and only enough heat per square meter to provide energy while not cooking our structures. Some natural resources that we can eat and drink would be nice too.

    Jupiter like planets will have satellites that might have the right sized radius to allow us to live on them. They don't all have to be planetesimals like Mars.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  6. Scientists by CatWrangler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First they tell us the earth ain't flat, then the Universe doesn't resolve around our planet... then the fake moon landings, now this. Good thing we have fundamentalists around telling us it isn't so. Seriously, unless there is a nature of physical or sound travel that we are unaware of, it really doesn't matter much to us that much if there is a civilization 1000 light years away. In the 2,000 years it would take to get a super amplified light message to them and back, will we still be around to listen?

    --

    ---
    When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

  7. Mathematics by Dexter77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A theory I once heard:

    Universe is about 15 000 000 000 years old. If habitable planets are common then there has to be much older races than we are. Let's say that one of those races is capable of space traveling and it takes 1000 years for that race to spread from planet to another. If they were 1 000 000 years older than us then they would've spread around the universe to 2^1000 planets. Even if it took 10 000 years to populate a planet after reaching one, they would have populated 2^100 planets. Now think about a race that would've been around for a 1 000 000 000 years. They should've populated every habitable planet in the universe.

    I can't remember the name of this theory, but please tell me if you do.

    1. Re:Mathematics by sunspot42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are lots of reasons why we might not have detected alien civilizations (yet) - even if they're quite common throughout the universe - let alone seen any evidence of their colonization. I can briefly list a dozen reasons right off the top of my head:

      1) Gamma ray bursts. Until relatively recently in the history of our universe - perhaps up until 500 million years ago - radiation from gamma ray bursts (and supernovae, for that matter) was routinely sterilizing the surfaces of most planets within our galaxy and every other fair-sized galaxy. It took 4.5 billion years for intelligent life capable of interstellar communication and interplanetary travel to evolve here on our planet. Assuming a roughly similar evolutionary pace on other worlds, there might just now be a handful of intelligent species coming into being throughout this galaxy (and others, for that matter).

      2) We're the first civilization to evolve in our galaxy. Unlikely, but someone's gotta be it. Whether or not we could be the first depends in large part on how rare advanced life forms are in our galaxy - a question we may have the answer to within our lifetimes, thanks to advanced space telescopes like the Terrestrial Planet Finder and its successors. If it turns out life on terrestrial planets is exceedingly rare - on the order of only a few dozen planets in our galaxy - then we very well could be the first intelligent species to evolve.

      3) Intelligence is common. Civilization is less common. Technology is vanishingly rare. Remember, in order to colonize the galaxy - or even be detected by a project like SETI - you have to have more than intelligence. You even need more than civilization. SETI is really the search for extraterrestrial *technology*. Space colonization requires technology. For whatever reason, perhaps few intelligent lifeforms make the leap to civilization, and fewer still make the leap to a technological civilization.

      4) Technological civilizations invariably wipe themselves out, or are wiped out by natural processes before they can begin interstellar colonization. A sobering proposition, but certainly one that's supported by our own civilization's close encounters with destruction (the Black Plague, the Tunguska event, WWI, WWII, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ebola, AIDS, terrorists with bioweapons . . .).

      5) The technology to engage in interstellar travel might be common, and technological civilizations might endure long enough to make such efforts practical. However, that same technology makes such expensive (and risky) undertakings unappealing. Why spend 50 years traveling to the nearest inhabitable planet? You might send out probes - or build larger telescopes - to observe other worlds, but you can simulate their environments and explore them from the comfort of your living room via virtual reality. If you could go on safari in your living room, would you sit in a cramped airplane seat for 20 hours flying to Africa?

      6) Technological civilizations eventually die not with a bang, but with a whimper. We see evidence of this happening already in Europe, where population growth comes only via immigrants. But what happens if the rest of the world reaches the technological and social advancement Europe has attained? Populations may begin to slowly decline worldwide. Without population pressure, there's no reason to colonize new territory here on Earth, let alone other planets. Indeed, you couldn't spare the human capital.

      7) Interstellar travel is impossible, for some currently unknown reason. Perhaps there are giant invisible particles between the stars - they could even be the source of that missing mass we hear so much about - that an unlucky spacecraft could slam into, instantly halting its journey to a nearby star. This is admittedly an unlikely proposition, but we'd be foolish to think we know everything about the feasibility of interstellar travel. Perhaps it's impossible regardless of your level of technological advancement - hence, no alien colonies scattered about the galaxy.

      8) They're already here. This could either take the form of X-Files-style shenanigans, or more benevolent intervention (think Gary Seven from that old Star Trek episode "Assignment: Earth"). Or perhaps only their probes are here, either so microscopic we don't detect them, or somehow disguised as ordinary objects (or creatures - this would go a long way towards explaining the behavior of housecats).

      9) They've all been wiped out by a malevolent alien über-civilization - one that could be on its way to eliminate us. Such villains are a sci-fi staple (War of the Worlds, Independence Day, The Borg), and one we've been foolish to so easily dismiss, especially in light of the silence that greets us from the heavens. There has to be some reason why alien technological civilizations are so rare, and this explanation is as valid as any other in light of the current evidence. Our radio broadcasts already reach out over 100 light-years, starting with the first primitive Morse Code transmissions from over a century ago. We've even deliberately (and foolishly) transmitted high power radio signals directly into space, in various attempts to announce our presence to interstellar listeners ("an open invitation to alien invasion" as the good Doctor on Britain's Doctor Who once wisely pegged it). How long we have before the day of reckoning depends on how close their nearest listening station is, and whether or not they've perfected a means of hyperlight travel. Assuming their nearest detector is 100 light years away, they've just become aware of our presence. Assuming they're limited to sublight travel, we've got another century before they - or some planet-busting weapon - arrives to deal with this latest disease outbreak in their galaxy.

      If you find this scenario unlikely, consider how you'd react to an anthill suddenly springing up in your living room.

      10) They're all hiding from possible über-civilizations (or each other). This certainly wouldn't be a stupid position to adopt, given the consequences of such an encounter. If you don't know what's out in the forest, you'd do well to keep quiet. And once you do know what's out there, you might have an even better reason to keep quiet. Technological civilizations might go completely underground, perhaps relocating themselves to an unspoiled nearby planet and burrowing deep beneath the surface in an effort to completely hide themselves from alien invaders - at least, until they feel they have the technology to resist any such invasion. Perhaps those gamma ray bursts aren't always natural phenomena at all - maybe they're sometimes the visible artifacts of colossal alien wars.

      11) Maybe they're all hiding from us. Perhaps there are no evil overlord über-civilizations. Maybe a federation of benevolent civilizations rules over our galaxy, perhaps after uniting to defeat less enlightened powers. Perhaps these enlightened powers possess the equivalent of Star Trek's Prime Directive, a strictly hands-off policy regarding lesser civilizations. We could dwell in a kind of interstellar game reserve, one that's off limits to alien intrusion. If so, we might never detect our superiors - at least, not for thousands of years, until we possess the technology to go out and meet them face-to-face. It's a comforting thought, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

      12) Maybe they aren't deliberately hiding from us. Perhaps we're surrounded by interstellar homebodies, but just can't hear them because they don't use radio to communicate. For whatever reason - simulations, interstellar obstacles, declining populations - they don't travel or colonize (much), so we don't physically encounter them or their artifacts, and their communications technology either doesn't involve radio (maybe they use some form of quantum communications), or utilizes radio in a way that sounds like static to our receivers. Of course, you'd think they'd detect our signals and issue some kind of reply, but they'd have to be within about 50 light years in order for that to be possible. Perhaps there's simply nobody that nearby. Entirely possible, if alien civilizations don't travel much.

      Even if you assume there are thousands of technological alien civilizations in this galaxy, if they only communicated with our form of radio for 100 to 200 years of their existence, it's possible there's nobody using our form of radio at the moment anywhere in the galaxy apart from us. Meanwhile, the galaxy is so vast, even with thousands of civilizations there might not be anybody listening within 500 light years of the Earth.

      Anyhow, it's way too early to say why we haven't been contacted, let alone visited, by alien intelligences. We simply don't have enough evidence. Some of the possible explanations are certainly unsettling, though.

    2. Re:Mathematics by uptownguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amazing post. You really hit most of the salient points that I've heard. I am impressed.

      Personally, I'd like to back #7:

      7) Interstellar travel is impossible, for some currently unknown reason. Perhaps there are giant invisible particles between the stars - they could even be the source of that missing mass we hear so much about - that an unlucky spacecraft could slam into, instantly halting its journey to a nearby star. This is admittedly an unlikely proposition, but we'd be foolish to think we know everything about the feasibility of interstellar travel. Perhaps it's impossible regardless of your level of technological advancement - hence, no alien colonies scattered about the galaxy

      Faster than light travel is impossible. The amounts of energy/fuel/TIME that would go into "interstellar travel" are, pardon the pun, astronomical. 39,900,000,000,000 km. to the NEAREST star. (To give you an idea of how FAR this really is, the .9 trillion KM (as in the 39.9 TRILLION KM) is almost 100 times further than voyager probes have travelled, zipping along at 17.3 km/second.) But no one really cares ALL that much the Centauris...so we need to go much further. Maybe hundreds of times further.

      Are we going to sustain a civilization to wait the 10,000 years for a probe to go to the NEAREST star? Are we going to somehow pack a group of several thousand travellers in a ship and expect them to not all kill each other? Quite a bet, considering writing, and consequently, all of recorded human history, has been around about that long. It would be an expensive trip. As in, less expensive to feed everyone, produce cheap clean energy on earth kind of expensive.

      And then what do they do when they get there and the "there" is -30F all the time or has too much argon in the atmosphere or nasty little bacteria everywhere...? People assume that you can just "terraform" a planet. HOW? Press a button? Launch a "genesis" missile? Give me a break.

      The fact of the matter is that the distances were are talking about are VAST. We KNOW faster than light travel is impossible. Civilizations may exist elsewhere. I can't say for sure. None of us can. Be we certainly aren't going to be doing exchange programs with them!!!

      --


      I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
    3. Re:Mathematics by barawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have been several (AimSTAR for one) serious proposals to NASA for interstellar probes that travel at significant fractions of lightspeed (0.3c in the proposal I saw). At that speed it would take only about 12 years to reach Alpha Centauri, and only around 30 or so years to reach a good number of stars. Definitely doable. (Most of these were ultralight antimatter fueled probes, and NASA didn't pick them up.)

      The other thing to remember is that time dilates near light speed, so for the object that's traveling, faster than light speed is easy. How fast do you want to get to Epsilon Eridani (a sunlike planet 10 light years away with a known Jovian-like planet)? 5 years? No problem. Travel at about 0.7c. 1 year? 0.95c. It will still take 10 years (or so) according to Earth, but not to the people on board.

      Also, a little more offbeat, yes, but faster than light travel is not impossible - just "likely to be impossible". Relativity is what says "FTL travel is impossible" and general relativity allows for multiply connected spacetime (wormholes) which would let you "effectively" move faster than the speed of light, and also the "moving walkway" effect (the Alcubierre effect) - that is, even though matter has a "maximum speed limit", space itself does not, so if you could move space around, you could drag yourself faster than the speed of light.

      Anyway, interstellar travel isn't impossible. It isn't even that difficult. It's just an engineering problem. Give it time.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Moon by tsa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder what life will look like on planets that don't have a moon like ours. The moon is very important in keeping the earth's axis ariented in the same position with regard to the sun. Without the moon, earth's axis could tilt so that one of the poles can be positioned towards the sun, thereby illuminating one side of the earth constantly while keeping the other side in the dark. If life can evolve on such a planet I would very much like to see what it looks like.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  10. Possibly an underestimate by imnoteddy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the article they were looking for the possibility of Earth-like planets in indendent orbits around stars. They weren't looking at the possibility of planets (moons) in orbit around gas giants. There is speculation reported here that Jupiter's moons Callisto, Ganymede and Europa have subsurface oceans which could support life.

    Adding moons of gas giants could raise the percentage of systems with Earth-like planets to higher than the 25 percent reported.

    --
    No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
  11. We don't know squat! by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • One time they're saying that habitable planets are almost everywhere.
    • Next time they're saying that the conditions required for habitability are too narrow -- there is not enough scope to allow for the likelihood of very many habitable planets.
    • Next time they're saying that since it does appear that many star systems have planets, there should be several hundred million habitable planets in our galaxy alone
    • Next time they're saying that habitable planets have to reside in what appear to be "calm" patches of the galaxy, where the gravitational influences of multiple stars upon an object is below some threshold, an uncommon proposition, at best -- extremely rare being more likely.
    • Now they're saying that habitable planets may be everywhere again.

    Bullshit! Why don't they just F***'in' admit it... we have NO idea what's out there and we're never going to know, or even have a bloody friggen clue, until we go out there ourselves (or at least SEND out a probe) -- it's plainly obvious that trying to extrapolate something meaningful from remotely observed phenomena alone is just not useful!

    (end of rant)

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  12. Our 'foreign' policy better improve b4 we visit... by Wonderkid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Based on the sometimes catastrophic consequences of British (and lesser so) American foreign policy on Earth, we better sort out our space exploration strategy sooner, rather than later. Our questionable motives for visits to other lands here on Earth have caused much grief and loss of dignity here due to our 'Western' arrogance. Now we have developed the capability to destroy ourselves (and then some), we will need to be very tactful if we do touch base with another intelligent race. Chances are, no matter our technical achievements, they will have the power to stomp on us like ants if we put a foot wrong using their weapons of mass (planetry) destruction.

    So, slash dotters, is it not time that Earth laid down the foundation for some Prime Directives?

    Engage! - With etiquette!

    --

    O'WONDERWe're working on it.

  13. Thanks New Scientist.... by xanthig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, besides the fact that this is the new scientist, the weekly world news of scientific discovery, that doesn't make this theory of prolific life in the universe any less valid than the theory of no other life in the universe.

    Life on earth is prolific. There are no enviornments on earth which humanity has yet to explore which do not contain some form of life. Heck we've even disocvered complex ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean sustaining themselves no through the sun's energy but from chemical processes.

    One day humanity is going to look back on the idea that earth is it and think of it in the same frame of mind that we now think of the age old theory that the earth is flat and you can fall off the edge.

    When we do find alien life it may not resemble anything we know, but it will be everywhere.

  14. 25% planetary systems identified ... by ClippyHater · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious if the fine folk at SETI have already gotten data from those 25%, or have they had a plan of where/when to get get data and they're sticking to it regardless of latest findings? I'd love to know that my SET@Home client is processing data from what may be a more likely location.

  15. Habitable Planets May Be Common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What I find interesting is that people seem to assume that earth type life forms are the only possibilities.

    What says there are not life forms that does not need f.ex oxygen? Or that they not are solid enough to live on heavy gravity planet like Jupiter? How about not needing water, or food for that matter?

    It's a huge assumption that life based on what we have here defines all life forms.

    Not that all have neccessarily made this assumption, but it sure is prevailing.

    Never mind the assumption that someone with advanced technologies enough to reach us must be friendly!

  16. Re:more ecosystems to destroy !!! by spike+hay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because it's habitable doesn't mean it has life. Odds are it's just got an atmosphere with oxygen, and liquid water. The land would be bare rock. There's nothing there to destroy. Perhaps we could relocate humans to non-earth planets and preserve earth.

    Yeah, just because it's in the habitable zone doesn't mean it has life or is habitable to humans. Too little atmosphere would make it freeze like Mars (mars is in the goldilox zone) or a dense greenhouse gas rich atmosphere would make it bake like Venus. (Venus is in the habitable zone, also)

    Anyway, I think by the time we have the technology for manned missions to other stars, we won't be at all like today's biological humans. We'll probably be hyperintelligent machines or something more intangible. It's hard to grasp the difficulty of intersteller travel. The stars are so distant. But we'll have the technology someday. If we move fast enough, perhaps the first intersteller colony will be established in this century.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  17. Re:You won't know in your lifetime by Traa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No matter how many statistical guesses different scientists make, the question of habitable planets, not to mention the question of other intelligences, will not be answered without actually going out and visiting them. This will not happen in your lifetime. You will not know. Sorry!

    Might want to see the movie "Contact" to update yourself on _how_ we will be able to detect life somewhere else. We do not have to go anywhere. All it takes is a good telescope (got those) and a lot of sifting through the data (SETI et el). Whether that will happend in our lifetime is part of scientific guesswork.

    I like the research that refines our understanding of the (habitable) universe and helps us create a scientific model that allows predictions for 'life out there'. I'd like to stress the _scientific_ nature of this research. The splitting of the atom, the landing on the moon, the cloning of molly and most other human achievements will pale in significance once we proof that earth is not the only place for life in the universe.

    "If we where the only life in the universe, wouldn't that be an awfull waste of space?"
    Now think Occams Razor!

  18. study underestimaes: gas giant moons ignored by 727scotty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The study doesn't take into account the moons of gas giants. It either Jupiter or Saturn were "in the goldilocks zone" (not too hot, not too cold!), then several of their moons (Europa, Calisto, etc) would be very Earth-like. Most of the studied systems have gas giants in close-in Earth-like orbits... Maybe most stars in our neighborhood have habitable planets.

  19. Mainfold: Space by Genady · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Read Manifold: Space by Baxter. There's some very good theory in there that basically states that "life will find a way" It's like a cancer, if there's any concievable way for it to flourish it will.

    The other big idea is that in order for intelligent life to exist for more than an intergalactic blink of an eye it has to expand to other star systems, eventually it needs to expand at a rate faster then the speed of light or it dies, basically making the foot print of intelligent life look like a circle. The outer fringes are where life it, the center is where intelligent life can't exist for lack of natural resources.

    Anyway, it's a good read with some interesting ideas.

    --


    What if it is just turtles all the way down?
  20. There's a large difference...... by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's a large difference between "capable of having planet with a stable orbit in the habitable zone" and "having an earthlike planet with a stable orbit in the habitable zone."

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of looking for extraterrestrial life and earthlike planets. (Who would have guessed?) That there are stable orbits in the habitable zone of many stars is not a surprise. It really says very little about the number of earthlike planets out there.

    I'm not the biggest fan of splashy press releases for unsurprising results. (I think the "more than anyone expected" comment is well overstated.) But it's AAS meeting time, so we'll be seeing a few of those this week. The usual ones are:

    • the best evidence ever for existence of black holes.
    • it looks like life could be common in the universe, but we still have no evidence of this.
    • more planets have been found.
    • the first time "blank" has been observed, where "blank" is something that has been announced as being observed for the "first time" at the previous 10 AAS meetings.
    • a controversial mars "result" that will be argued about for years.
    • look at the pretty pictures a half billion dollar space mission can give you.
    These are the ones you will hear about because we astronomers tend to think that this is all the press would be interested in hearing about. Maybe we're right, maybe we're not. At any rate, AAS meetings are a good time to think about whether the way we sell science to the public is the best way. Any suggestions?

    Hidden among these press conferences will be one surprising result that is wrong, one surprising result that is correct and interesting, and the correction of a surprising result released at the previous meeting. And there will be a lot of interesting research presented by people who don't schedule press conferences. It will, for the most part, be ignored by the press.

    --
    Support SETI@home
  21. Re:But... by Bicoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ummm....

    Not to be a smartass or anything, but we shouldn't BE looking for a planet with an atmosphere more or less like ours. Earth didn't start out with lots of water, OR with an oxygen atmosphere. We were a rock with lots of iron, manganese, and silicon oxides with a hydrogen cyanide atmosphere. It wasn't until after a bunch of comets struck the earth and deposited a bunch of water that we actually had oceans. And it wasn't until our atmosphere was converted by photosynthesizing bacteria that we got an oxygen atmosphere. Even if we DO find live, it's more likely we'll find chemosythetic microorganisms or something similar. It's very unlikely we'll find a planet all ready for us to drop colony ships and stick people on.

    Regardless of how common earth-like planets are, we're going to need to terraform them so they'll be habitable for us. We'll need to engineer bacteria similar to the ones which converted our atmosphere and we'll likely also have to redirect some large comets from their outer fringes to make a water ocean.

    Part of me just keeps wanting to yell at the astrophysicists, astronomers, and sci-fi authors who talk about the difficulty of finding a habitable planet. Please, these people need some paleontology and historical geology courses under their belt before they can go off spouting about "habitable" planets. Regardless, we're going to have to MAKE those planets habitable or else we're going to have to change ourselves so that we can inhabit those planets. It's common sense.

    --
    If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
  22. The Catholic Church by dachshund · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Basically, I've never heard anything about the Catholic church disputing the idea of extinction or dinosaurs. Or are you just using that as a type of example?

    There was a great deal of contention prior to 1950, when the Church officially announced that it would tolerate its members believing in the Theory of Evolution. This ocurred when Pope Pius XII produced the papal encyclical entitled "Humani Generis". His statement said, essentially, that it was alright for Catholics to believe whatever scientific theory they wanted... then went on to stress that the Theory of Evolution was still unproven.

    The above poster may be referring to the much more recent (1996) statement by Pope John Paul II entitled "Truth cannot contradict Truth". In this document, the pope not only accepted the ToE as being in line with Catholic beliefs, but he stated that it was "more than a hypothesis". This was the first time that a Pope officially supported the ToE, rather than merely tolerating it.

    So it's more or less correct that the Church only officially got behind Evolution recently, though I don't know if it's accurate to say that they disputed the existence (and extinction) of the Dinosaurs.

    The same applies to fossils. If fossils found far far back didn't belong to deceased animals, then that means (to religious people) that God put them there (the bones). But then that contradicts the watchmaker theory. Why would God create essentially fraudulent records?

    It seems that the existence of fossils could be construed as incompatible with the Watchmaker theory anyway. Why would God, in the process of creating an intricately designed world, feel it necessary to create creatures (actually, entire ecosystems) that would ultimately be unable to survive?

    You could respond that God is ineffable, but that same logic pretty much works for the folks who think God created fake fossils and buried them in the ground. The point is, once you allow for the existence of God, rational arguments are pretty much always vulnerable to the divine wild-card.