Scientist seek scientific answers only to scientific questions. There are
many questions that are not scientific and so science qua science has no
contribution to make. Some of us do not believe that the question of origins
is a purely scientific question. If so, then scientists have just as much
say on it as theologians.
>As to Moorad's example of research into "astrobiology": I don't follow
>the reasoning for presenting that particular blurb. It is one thing to
>suppose that life arose and evolved elsewhere in the universe. Granted,
>we've got only one data set to examine at this point and exobiolology
>(which is what "astrobiology" used to be called) has nothing to study.
>SETI is a fishing expedition, but it is not out of line from the same
>style of research expeditions that scientists have always pursued.
A strict evolutionist would consider life to have developed unaided by any
sort of intelligence. Therefore, if he/she cannot find the development of
life on earth, he/she will seek it elsewhere.
>However, this is far cry from the proposal that some extraterrestrial agent
>has deposited organisms like dairy cattle or chipmunks (or other creatures)
>on Earth and on a somewhat regular basis. I recall that the latter case
>is more like the one Moorad originally proposed that "evolutionists" would
>fall to.
>
>Essentially, I don't feel the case has yet been made by Moorad that
>"evolution is unfalsifiable." That was the original claim that
>triggered many of these posts.
>
>Regards,
>Tim Ikeda
>tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)