Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon defends panspermia in a recent note:
Having been an advocate for a version of panspermia that I call panzooia, I take criticisms seriously.
The basic complaint from ID, is that panspermia “kicks the can down the road” without ever explaining OOL.
This is unfair criticism. It is like saying to the obstetrician, “Thank you for delivering a healthy baby but you never explained where he gets his consciousness from.” Or complaining to the surgeon, “Thank you for removing the cancerous tumor, but you never explained what caused it in the first place.”
The answer to critics of panspermia, is that it is not intended as an origin of life (OOL) theory; rather, it answers the question “Where did life on Earth come from?”
Now you might argue, “We don’t care about life on Earth, we want to know about OOL of life in the universe.” Well, that’s a different question, and we have considerably less data to go on. At this point, it stops being a science question, and more of a philosophy question.
For if life arrived by a comet from another solar system, how are we to determine the conditions in that other solar system? The best answer, and the answer given by every panspermia person I know, is “I don’t know.” Which is a perfectly fine answer, and quite scientific. Demand for more precision is simply philosophical at that point. That’s why it is unfair to raise philosophical objections to a perfectly scientific position. If ID wants to be a science, it must avoid delving into speculative philosophy, because everyone will then say “It’s not a science.”
But I would argue, “I don’t know” is a hole big enough to drive a truck through. When science admits ignorance, this is a chance to (a) devise experiments, (b) construct theories, (c) debate the usefulness of potential theories, ie. philosophy. It’s a opportunity, not a show-stopper. So rather than criticize panspermia, help us out. Offer suggestions.
And in actuality, panspermia advocates have developed grand theories of OOL, but they are reluctant to explain them, perhaps because of the ridicule.
(1) One rather ancient view is that the universe is eternal, and has always had life in it. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) was of the opinion that the Big Bang never happened. It is not a popular view today, and I can only count four or five Hoyle devotees today who hold this view, but it is not an unreasonable view, simply one that now has to explain away the evidence for the Big Bang.
I say this, because these people have received much unnecessary ridicule for doubting the scientific consensus. They should be treated respectfully, as co-belligerents in this war against scientific consensus, and not as kooks.
(2) Another view is that the life arose very early in the universe, when the Cosmic Background Radiation was between 0 C and 100 C and all the comets in the universe were balls of water. Then the matter of the universe was mostly liquid water, and the “resources” for life were at an all-time high. I have met one or two that hold this view.
(3) A third view is that radioactivity was higher in the early universe, with some elements made in the Big Bang that decayed shortly thereafter, or perhaps were formed in supernovae in the early universe and incorporated into comets. This radioactivity both melted the comets and provided a ready energy source for life to grow. So the era of comet-initiated life was extended for a few billion years. This is Chandra Wickramasinghe’’s view.
(4) My own view is perhaps a combination of all of them, that a magnetic Big Bang created abundant oxygen which led to comets which are the dark matter of the universe and some 70% of the matter in the universe. These comets carry both life and magnetite machinery for extracting energy from magnetic fields, so that life can grow even in the deep recesses of space. The same magnetite machinery enables information to be collected and concentrated. Then OOL is a transfer of concentrated information from magnetism to chemistry, and all the OOL theories starting with chemistry try to begin at the wrong step. A corollary is that the universe was created with magnetic information that provided the information needed for life.
So indeed, it is erroneous to accuse panspermia advocates of “kicking the can down the road.” Maybe ID people can listen harder and speak less brashly.
Sheldon is also the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .
Readers, are there ID-related objections to panspermia?
See also: ID types are unfair to panspermia? Eric Anderson replies Anderson: The primary question on the table with abiogenesis/OOL research for generations has always been “How did life arise?” The location is secondary, almost to the point of being a bit player in the discussion.