Oh.. I am sure many biologists believe in aliens. How many top level ones do though? I will cite an exrpt from the book":
"... At a famous conference in 1961, the astronomer and SETI enthusiast Frank Drake noted that the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that might contact us can be estimated with the following formula:
1) The number of stars in the galaxy X
2) The fraction of stars with planets X
3) The number of planets per solar system with a life supporting environment X
4) The fraction of these planets on which life actually appears X
5) The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligence emerges X
6) The fraction of intelligent societies willing and able to communicate with other worlds X
7) The longevity of each technology in the communicative state.
The astronomers, physicists and engineers at the conference felt unable to estimate factor 6) without a sociologist or a historian. But they felt confident in estimating factor 5), the portion of life bearing planets which intelligence emerges. They decided it was one hundred percent."
... [skipping the planet of the apes stuff] "Drake expressed these arguments in a letter to Science defending SETI against the eminent biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr had noted that only one of the fifty million species on earth had developed civilizations, so the probability that life on a given planet would include intelligent species might very well be small. Drake replied:
The fist species to develop intelligent civilizations will discover that it is the only such species. Should it be surprised? Some must be first, and being first says nothing about how many other species had or have the potential to evolve into intelligent civilizations, or may do so in the future... Similarly, among many civilizations, one will be the first and temporarily the only one, to develop electronic technology. How else could it be? The evidence does suggest that planetary systems need to exist in sufficient benign circumstances for a few billion years for a technology using species to evolve.
To see why this thinking runs afoul of the modern theory of evolution, consider an analogy. The human brain is an exquisitely complex organ that evolved only once. The elephant's trunk, which can stack logs, uproot trees, pick up a dime, remove thorns, powder the elephant with dust, siphon water, serve as a snorkel, and scribble with a pencil, is another complex organ that only evolved once. The brain and the trunk are products of the same evolutionary force, natural selection. Imagine an astronomer on the Planet of the Elephants defending SETT, the Search for Extraterrestrial Trunks:
The fist species to develop a trunk will discover that it is the only such species. Should it be surprised? Some must be first, and being first says nothing about how many other species had or have the potential to evolve trunks, or may do so in the future... Similarly, among many trunk-bearing species, one will be the first and temporarily the only one, to powder itself with dust. The evidence does suggest that planetary systems need to exist in sufficient benign circumstances for a few billion years for trunk-using species to evolve....
This reasoning strikes us as cockeyed because the elephant is assuming that evolution did not just
produce the trunk in a species on this planet but was
striving to produce it in some lucky species, each waiting and hoping."
pg 151&152
"How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker