The alien took the papers. His eyestalks weaved in and out. “Your family will not want this?”

“They have copies of the finished book.”

He unwrapped a portion of the cloth around his torso, revealing a large plastic carrying pouch. The manuscript pages fit in with room to spare. “Thank you,” he said.

There was silence between us. At last, I said, “No, Hollus — thank you. For everything.” And I reached out and touched the alien’s arm.

17

I sat in our living room, late that night, after Hollus had returned to his starship. I’d taken two pain pills, and I was letting them settle before I went to bed — the nausea sometimes made it hard to keep the pills down.

Maybe, I thought, the Forhilnor was right. Maybe there was no smoking gun that I would accept. He said it was all there, right in front of my eyes.

There are none so blind as those who will not see;besides the Twenty-ninth Scroll, that’s one of my favorite bits of religious writing.

But I wasn’t blind, dammit. I had a critical eye, a skeptic’s eye, the eye of a scientist.

It stunned me that life on assorted worlds all used the same genetic code. Of course, Fred Hoyle had suggested that Earth — and presumably other planets — were seeded with bacterial life that drifted in from space; if all the worlds Hollus had visited were seeded from the same source, the genetic code would, of course, be the same.

But even if Hoyle’s theory isn’t true — and it’s really not a very satisfying theory, since it simply pushes the origin of life off to some other locale that we can’t easily examine — maybe there were good reasons why only those twenty amino acids were suitable for life.

As Hollus and I had discussed before, DNA has four letters in its alphabet: A, C, G, and T, for adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, the bases that form the rungs of its spiral ladder.

Okay — a four-letter alphabet. But how long are the words in the genetic language? Well, the purpose of that language is to specify sequences of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and, as I said, there are twenty different aminos used by life. Obviously, you can’t uniquely identify each of those twenty with words just one letter long: a four-letter alphabet only provides four different one-letter words. And you couldn’t do it with words two letters long: there are only sixteen possible two-letter words in a language that has just four characters. But if you use three-letter words, ah, then you’ve got an embarrassment of riches, a William F. Buckley-style biochem vocabulary of a whopping sixty-four words. Set aside twenty to name each amino acid, and two more for punctuation marks — one for starting transcription and another for stopping. That means only twenty-two of the sixty-four possible words are needed for DNA to do its work. If a god had designed the genetic code, he must have looked at the surplus vocabulary and wondered what to do with it.

It seems to me that such a being would have considered two possibilities. One was to leave the remaining forty-two sequences undefined, just as there are letter sequences in real languages that don’t form valid words. That way, if one of those sequences cropped up in a string of DNA, you’d know that a mistake had occurred in copying — a genetic typo, turning the valid code A-T-A into, say, the gibberish A-T-C. That would be a clear, useful signal that something had gone wrong.

The other alternative would be to live with the fact that copying errors were going to occur, but try to reduce their impact by adding synonyms to the genetic language. Instead of having one word for each amino acid, you could have three words that mean the same thing. That would use up sixty of the possible words; you could then have two words that mean start and two more that mean stop, rounding out the DNA dictionary. If you tried to group the synonyms logically, you could help guard against transcription errors: if A-G-A, A-G-C, and A-G-G all meant the same thing, and you could only clearly read the first two letters, you’d still have a good shot at guessing what the word meant even without knowing the third letter.

In fact, DNA does use synonyms. And if there were three synonyms to specify each amino acid, one might look at the code and say, yup, someone had carefully thought this out. But two amino acids — leucine and serine — are specified by six synonyms each, and others by four, three, two, or even just one: poor tryptophan is specified only by the word T-G-G.

Meanwhile, the code A-T-G can mean either the amino acid methionine (and there are no other genetic words for it) or, depending on context, it can be the punctuation mark for “start transcription” (which also has no other synonyms). Why on Earth — or anyplace else — would an intelligent designer make such a hodgepodge? Why require context sensitivity to determine meaning when there were enough words available to avoid having to do that?

And what about the variations in the genetic code? As I’d told Hollus, the code used by mitochondrial DNA differs slightly from that used by the DNA in the nucleus.

Well, in 1982, Lynn Margulis had suggested that mitochondria — cellular organelles responsible for energy production — had started out as separate bacterial forms, living in symbiosis with the ancestors of our cells, and that eventually these separate forms were co-opted into our cells, becoming part of them. Maybe . . . God, it was a long time since I’d done any serious biochemistry . . . but maybe the mitochondrial and nuclear genetic codes had indeed originally been identical, but, when the symbiosis began, evolution favored mutations that allowed for a few changes in the mitochondrial genetic code; with two sets of DNA existing within the same cell, maybe these few changes served as a way to distinguish the two forms, preventing accidental mingling.

I hadn’t mentioned it to Hollus, but there were also some minor differences in the genetic code employed by ciliated protozoans — if I remember correctly, three codons have different meanings for them. But . . . I was blue-skying; I knew that . . . but some said that cilia, those irreducibly complex organelles whose death had brought about my own lung cancer, had started out as discrete organisms, as well. Maybe those ciliated protozoa that had a variant genetic code were descended from some cilia who had been in symbiosis with other cells in the past, developing genetic-code variations for the same safety-net reasons mitochondria had but, unlike the cilia we still retained, had subsequently broken off the symbiosis and returned to stand-alone life.

It was a possibility, anyway.

Still, when I’d been a kid in Scarborough, we’d shared a back fence with a woman named Mrs. Lansbury. She was very religious — a “Holy Roller,” my dad would say — and was always trying to persuade my parents to let her take me to church on Sundays. I never went, of course, but I do remember her favorite expression: the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Perhaps so. But I found it hard to believe he would work in shoddy, haphazard ones.

And yet —

And yet what was it Hollus had said about Wreed language?

It, too, relies on context sensitivity and the unusual use of synonyms. Maybe at some Chomsky-esque level, I just wasn’t wired properly to see the elegance in the genetic code. Maybe T’kna and his kin found it perfectly reasonable, perfectly elegant.

Maybe.

Suddenly the cat was out of the bag.

I hadn’t said a word to anyone about the Merelcas’s mission being, at least in part, to look for God. And I was pretty sure the gorillas in Burundi had been mum on the topic. But all at once, everyone knew.

There was a row of newspaper boxes by the entrance to North York Centre subway station. The headline on today’s Toronto Star said, “Aliens Have Proof of God’s Existence.” The headline on the Globe and Mail proclaimed, “God a Scientific Fact, Say ETs.” The National Post declared, “Universe Had a Creator.” And the Toronto Sun proclaimed just two giant words, filling most of its front page: “God lives!”