The record of astronomers in estimating the number of extraterrestrial civilizations is a poor record. Moreover, in discussing some of the questions relevant to such an estimate, astronomers have long been guilty of misspeaking.
An example of such an astronomer who made great mistakes at such a task was Carl Sagan. Eager to promote the idea that extraterrestrial cultures were abundant in our galaxy, Sagan again and again misled his readers and those who listened to him in interviews. Making a grotesque misrepresentation of the complexity of the bodies of human beings, Sagan often repeated the slogan "we are all star stuff." Human bodies are enormously organized marvels of fine-tuned arrangement that are the opposite of "stuff" (a word meaning something disorganized). The degree of organization in your body makes the degree of organization in the James Webb Space Telescope look trivial in comparison.
Sagan also repeatedly misled his readers and listeners by making the false claim that "the stuff of life" is scattered throughout the universe. The truth is that the lowest building components of living things are amino acids, which have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts in outer space, such as 1 part per billion on comets or interstellar molecular clouds.
In his book Intelligent Life in the Universe, Sagan dogmatically proclaimed on page 418 that "The number of extant civilizations substantially in advance of our own in the Galaxy today appears to be perhaps between 50 thousand and one million." The claim was as arbitrary and poorly established as Senator McCarthy's claims in the 1950's about there being 205 registered communists in the US State department. Just as McCarthy kept changing his estimate about the number of communists in the State Department, Sagan kept changing his estimates of the number of civilized planets in our galaxy. He would repeatedly claim that there were a million civilizations in our galaxy, and some of the times he made such estimates, he would try to suggest that whatever estimate he made was the estimate made by most astronomers, although he never gave any evidence to back up such a claim about a majority of astronomers agreeing with him, and never even backed up any claim that a large fraction of astronomers agreed with him. The failure of 60+ years of efforts to detect radio signals from extraterrestrial civilizations makes Sagan's estimates seem way off the mark.
Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson "put on the mantle" of Carl Sagan when he hosted the retread of Sagan's TV series Cosmos. And Tyson has repeated some of Sagan's errors. In a recent interview with the Daily Mail, Tyson starts out by falsely claiming that everyone who has studied the question of extraterrestrial life believes in extraterrestrials. He states, "Anyone who's studied the problem would answer without hesitation that we are not alone." To the contrary, a large fraction of those who have studied the issue of extraterrestrial life are pessimistic about the chances of extraterrestrial life, because of the extremely high organization and functional complexity of even the simplest living cells, a state of organization we would never expect chance to produce from lifeless chemicals.
Life originating from non-life has zero observational or experimental basis in physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy. No experiment realistically simulating the early Earth has ever even produced the amino acids that are the building components of protein molecules. The Miller-Urey was not such an experiment, for reasons discussed here.
In the most recent poll asking astrobiologists about whether they believed in intelligent extraterrestrials, roughly 40% failed to answer that they agreed that intelligent extraterrestrials exist. There has always been widespread skepticism among many scientists that intelligent extraterrestrials exist, based on factors such as the very high organization of even the simplest self-reproducing cell. So Tyson misleads us when he says, "Anyone who's studied the problem would answer without hesitation that we are not alone." This is as false as claiming that anyone who has pondered whether God exists would agree without hesitation that God exists. Intelligent life may be very common in the universe, but its chances of arising elsewhere without the assistance of some purposeful agency seem slim.
Tyson's very next statement in the interview is an equally false statement. He states, "'We're made of the most common ingredients in the universe." This is not at all true. None of the things depicted below are common in outer space.
A Google Gemini infographic
There are two ways to look at whether that statement is true: to look at the question from the standpoint of elements, and to look at the question from the standpoint of molecules. The universe is 74% hydrogen and 24% helium. All other elements make up less than 2% of the universe's mass. Human bodies have no helium, and no free hydrogen. By weight the hydrogen in your body makes up only about 10% of your body. So from an element standpoint, it is not at all true that you are made of the most common ingredients in the universe.
But what about from a molecular standpoint? The most common molecule in the universe by far is a molecule consisting of nothing but two hydrogen atoms. That molecule is not found in our bodies. The next most common molecule in the universe is carbon monoxide, which is not found in appreciable amounts in the human body. Water is believed to be the third most common molecule in the universe, and water is found abundantly in the human body. But water is 100 times less common in the universe than carbon monoxide.
From a structural standpoint, the real "ingredients" of our body are protein molecules, things that are not found in any abundance outside of planet Earth. Each protein molecule is a very complex special arrangement of hundreds or thousands of amino acids. Amino acids are very rare outside of planet Earth. They are so rare they have never been discovered on Mars.
So Tyson misinforms us badly when he says, "We're made of the most common ingredients in the universe." It is misleading to describe a human as "made of ingredients," a phrase that misleads us by suggesting that internally we are simple, like some soup of structural simplicity. Materialist astronomers want you to believe that physically you're nothing very special. The facts of science teach us the exact opposite: that a human body is a state of fine-tuned hierarchical organization 1,000,000,000,000,000 times more impressive than any state of organization yet discovered outside of planet Earth.
Appendix: The simplest amino acid is glycine. There is no robust evidence that glycine exists in any appreciable amounts in interstellar space. Recent claims to have found glycine after a soil sample retrieval from an asteroid in the solar system do not count as such robust evidence, both because such an asteroid is not in interstellar space, and because the amounts supposedly detected are so minute they can credibly be accounted for by assuming terrestrial contamination (as I discuss here).
In the 2006 paper here we read about an apparent false alarm regarding the detection of the amino acid glycine in interstellar space:
"The early searches for glycine were all negative, but two years ago Kuan et al. (2003) reported detection of a number of glycine lines, some 27 in several astronomical sources. Unfortunately, this claim has not been confirmed. The amount of glycine claimed by Kuan et al. is in conflict with previously published upper limits (e.g. Combes et al. 1996; Ceccarelli et al. 2000), and glycine lines which should have appeared were not found. In a detailed analysis of the evidence, Snyder et al. (2005) recently concluded that few, if any, of the lines attributed by Kuan et al. to interstellar glycine were actually from that molecule. The spectroscopic data on which the claim of Kuan et al. was based have not been published or made available to other workers, and there is now a fairly wide consensus among radio astronomers and laboratory spectroscopists that glycine has not yet been found in space."
A more recent 2022 paper tells us this: "The simplest amino acid, glycine (NH2CH2COOH), has been searched for a long time in the interstellar medium, but all surveys of glycine have failed."
A few years ago we had a press release from EurekAlert!, a source that often recycles misleading or dubious press releases from various institutions and universities. The press release was entitled "An amino acid essential for life is found in interstellar space." The press release refers to a paper "A search for tryptophan in the gas of the IC 348 star cluster of the Perseus molecular cloud." In the paper the lone author of the paper (Susana Iglesias-Groth) makes no confident claim to have found tryptophan in interstellar space; and the title refers to a search, not a finding. She merely claims to have got some spectrum readings that she claims are compatible with tryptophan. Spectrum readings from very distant space are very often subject to multiple different interpretations. The Perseus molecular cloud is 1000 light-years away, and trying to use spectrum readings to detect a molecule existing only in trace amounts is a dicey business with a large chance of error.
All reports of detecting amino acids in asteroids, comets or interstellar space are reports claiming detection at the tiniest trace amounts levels such as 1 part per billion. Amino acids are emphatically not some "of the most common ingredients in the universe."





