>It is designing if the alien designed the bacterium they placed here. I
>have heard that suggested. YOu say that this pushes the question of origin
>of life back to the alien home world and thus imply that we shouldn't do
>that. In what way does this really differ from placing the origin of life
>with God? With God we have placed the origin of intelligence/life of some
>form back to a place where we can not discuss its origin. What is the real
>difference other than one is traditional and the other isn't?
Tim:
>Hmmm... It's easy to split hairs on the question of ID & panspemia.
>I think the "seeding theory" is strongly tied to current ID
>theories in that both may propose that life did not or could not
>arise on Earth. ID has not progressed terribly much further from its
>roots as an anti-evolutionary hypothesis. And panspermists such as
>Brig Klyce employ similar arguments. The primary differences between
>the two seem to be that most mainstream ID'ers prefer a supernatural
>origin for life whereas the panspermists tend to think life was a
>natural outcome.
>Another difference I see is that many panspermists do not propose that
>he creation, or in this case, seeding of life has stopped. Thus it is
>possible, in principle, to confirm panspermia by either finding life
>on other planets that have similar biochemistry or by finding
>"space spores"; some form of encapsulated life in space. These
>things may still be dropping through our solar system.
I agree with this and think yet another difference stems from
the number of design events proposed. Panspermia is a viable
option in explaining the origin of life (and perhaps basic cell types),
but I think it begins to become strained when we begin to investigate
evolution. Seeding the planet with natural spores or artificially encased
cells is not implausible, but seeding it with a multicellular life
form may be too much to entertain seriously. But then again,
one could postulate that the planet is seeded with genetic
material that gains access to the biosphere through viral
mechanisms (I believe this is exactly what Hoyle has proposed).
>I agree with Mike that the attempts to find life's origins on earth
>are based on emotional preferences. If you don't know how life started,
>the only conclusion you've got is that you don't know how it started.
>That's not terribly appealing. And it's surely not a terribly good
>basis for a theory of origin by interactive design.
But let's be sure to distinguish between the questions how
did life get started on this planet and how did life get started.
We can address the first question in a fruitful manner while
conceding the ultimate question may be beyond our reach.
>But there are also practical reasons why the search should focus
>primarily on terrestrial origins. One reason is that it's a whole
>lot easier. As an analogy; all things being equal, if you've lost
>your keys somewhere in a dark parking lot with only one light, the
>best place to starting looking is under that light. We can't fly to
>the nearest stars and so far, any possible supernatural ID agent
>seems reluctant to leave good evidence of its interference in the
>natural process involved with the evolution of life.
I agree that we should place primary focus on the origin of life
in terrestial terms. And we have and we do. But it seems
to me primary focus has become exclusive focus and one the
reasons often cited for such exclusion is the emotional one
about pushing the problem one step back. This emotive rationalization
is even found in intro biology textbooks as a "major objection" to
panspermia, thus underscoring the non-rational attributes of
science.
>SETI investigators are in a similar boat; they limit most of their
>scans to those portions of the spectrum where they *think* they
>can hear extraterrestrial transmissions -- It's not because they
>know extraterrestrials prefer to use those bands, it's just that
>if the ETs use other bands, the signal might not propagate well
>enough for detection.
Agreed. Which is why failure to detect such signals means
only that we have failed to detect such signals. Thus, when you
claim that a "supernatural ID agent seems reluctant to leave
good evidence of its interference in the natural process involved
with the evolution of life," it's important to note the nature of
the data-spectrum you scan to reach this opinion.
Mike