I was disagreeing with "directed panspermia" being ultimately a naturalistic explanation.
The origin of life on earth by "directed panspermia" would not be, IMO, purely
naturalistic because there is intelligent intervention, which, again IMO,
falls outside what most scientists understand as naturalism.
Salutis
George Murphy wrote:
>
> Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >
> > >how open are Johnson _et
> > > al_ to the possibility of something like Crick's "directed panspermia" -
> > > which is ultimately a naturalistic explanation?
> > >
> > > George L. Murphy
> >
> > I don't agree here at all. I view directed panspermia as a deferral of the
> > issue of the origin of life. Wherever in the universe life did start
> > (assuming it did) a question can always be made, was it naturalistically or
> > divinely started?
>
> I'm not sure what or who you're disagreeing with. Yes, directed
> panspermia just puts off the question of origin of life. I was
> responding to the suggestion that ID might not require anything
> "supernatural" by saying that I doubted that many ID proponents would be
> satisfied with this sort of penultimate ID
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@imperium.net
> http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy