FSTDT

here's also the religious explanation which has been missed out. Whatever your prejudices on this subject, for objectivity's sake, this one should have been included.

Pope John Paul II (died 2005) canonised as a Christian saint a carrot peeler nun (ie, very humble, low-level nun) who claimed in her diary that Jesus had told her that the universe is teeming with life. St Faustina.

The Catholic position is that there is no dogma on this matter, although the above makes it an informal teaching. But it's particularly interesting since a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory, Lemaitre, and a Catholic monk, Mendel, is considered the father of modern genetics. (Catholicism has never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible.)

Meanwhile, the ex-atheist, near-death-experience, Arts professor, Howard Storm (now a methodist), says that he was shown by God that not only is the universe teeming with life, but also intelligent life, and that we are either the only or one of very few that rebelled against God. All other planets with intelligent life receive God's blessings without resistence. Considering God's blessings to us include death, I suppose that's not too surprising. :)

The interesting detail in Storm's testimony is why outside life isn't communicating with us (radio waves etc): there is no need as, excepting humans, intelligent beings communicate without need of material means, particularly through 'union' in which they experience each other's existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustina_Kowalska

Howard Storm, talking to some old ladies ina Church:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmY2yZU_CGk

No, it shouldn't be included. This is a scientific discussion. Religion is for theologians and philosophers. Take it there.

Lol!! You're presumably an atheist. Only an atheist prejudice would make such a claim. The question isn't purely scientific. And no reasonable scientist would exclude this possibility. An atheist scientist would, however.

And while there has been an amazing loss of faith among the young, (mostly due to successful misinformation from atheists such as Dawkins), atheism continues to be a minority belief. Most people are at most agnostic, making no atheistic presumptions. And atheism is presumptuous since there has never been a proof of no god, and plenty of evidence that that might be one, starting with the fact that there are so many people claiming to have had personal contact with a god. Which includes myself.

“Alternative facts” aren’t new. Young-Earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis believe the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old despite actual mountains of evidence to the contrary, and they've been playing the “alternative facts” card for years. In lieu of conceding incontrovertible geological evidence, they sidestep it by saying, “Well, we just look at those facts differently.”

Nowhere is this more apparent than the Grand Canyon, which young-Earth creationist groups have long been enamored with. A long geologic record (spanning almost 2 billion years, in total) is on display in the layers of the Grand Canyon thanks to the work of the Colorado River. But many creationists instead assert that the canyon’s rocks—in addition to the spectacular erosion that reveals them—are actually the product of the Biblical “great flood” several thousand years ago.

Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end. The Park Service can grant permits for collecting material, which is otherwise illegal.

Snelling wanted to collect rocks from structures in sedimentary formations known as “soft-sediment deformation”—basically, squiggly disturbances of the layering that occur long before the sediment solidifies into rock. While solid rock layers can fold (bend) on a larger scale under the right pressures, young-Earth creationists assert that all folds are soft sediment structures, since forming them doesn’t require long periods of time.

The National Park Service sent Snelling’s proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. None felt the project provided any value to justify the collection. One reviewer, the University of New Mexico’s Karl Karlstrom, pointed out that examples of soft-sediment deformation can be found all over the place, so Snelling didn’t need to collect rock from a national park. In the end, Snelling didn’t get his permit.

In May, Snelling filed a lawsuit alleging that his rights had been violated, as he believed his application had been denied by a federal agency because of his religious views. The complaint cites, among other things, President Trump’s executive order on religious freedom.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.

Not that anything he collects will matter. “Even if I don’t find the evidence I think I will find, it wouldn’t assault my core beliefs,” Snelling told The Australian. “We already have evidence that is consistent with a great flood that swept the world.”
Again, in actuality, that hypothesis is in conflict with the entirety of Earth’s surface geology.

Snelling says he will publish his results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That likely means Answers in Genesis’ own Answers Research Journal, of which he is editor-in-chief.