Last time here we discussed the new Kepler satellite and what exactly it was looking for in the heavens above us. Now we look at little deeper into it all, and even wax philosophical.

You may recall that the Kepler satellite is on a very specialized mission - to look for earthlike planets. Only the definition of earthlike isn't too clear. When Kepler makes a find, as it is almost certain to do, will the planet be "earthlike" merely because it was a big rock found at a certain distance around its star? Will many automatically assume that the discovery must be an earth clone, with continents and oceans, mountains and valleys?

The latter, but popular, idea is ridiculously improbable - astronomically so. But what if, just for the sake of argument, it were so? What if an earth twin were found? Does it follow life must be there?

Many in the scientific community assume that since life appeared so quickly and so early here, that it must be rife in the universe. Well allow me, if you would, to play the grumpy old skeptic here and ask a few uncomfortable questions.

If one indeed thinks that life is ubiquitous throughout the universe, then it is probably relatively easy to make in the laboratory. But is it? For more than a century, the best labs all over the world run by some of the smartest people on the planet, under the most controlled, pristine conditions, cannot even build a "simple" one-celled organism. Why not? Is life maybe too complex to "just happen"?

We skeptics need evidence that life is all over the place. We have none and mere wishful thinking doesn't count. We need mechanisms that show how it might have happened. We have seen none. The origin of life is one of the Great Mysteries even in today's ultra-hightech milieu.

Let me now take off my science hat and put on my philosopher's cap. Perhaps the reasoning is flawed, the reasoning that says, "Nature is all there is. Therefore life sprang spontaneously here, naturally, all by itself. If it did here, it must have sprung up countless other places."

A fatal flaw might be in the premise that says nature is all there is. There might be more than nature. People for tens of thousands of years have believed that there is a Being beyond nature who created life. Who knows? Maybe they have been right the whole time.

When my fellow scientists carelessly toss out Life-Is-Everywhere statements, feel free to throw back the hard questions. Science will benefit by your skepticism and we can all benefit by asking the Great Questions.