Extraterrestrials could have started life on Earth …

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 25, 2011

Extraterrestrial life, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Martian flying spaceship in this alien clipart funny picture.

Donald E. Johnson compiled a handy list of people who, beginning over a century ago, have suggested that extraterrestrials could have started life on Earth:

S. Arrhenius., Worlds in the Making, 1908.
Francis Crick, “The Origin of the Genetic Code” J. Mol Biol: 38, 1968, p. 367-379.
Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, 1983, pp. 16-17.
Bernstein. Max, Jason Dworkin, Scott Sandford, George Cooper, and Louis Allamandola, “Racemic amino acids from the ultraviolet photolysis of intestellar ice analogue,” Nature”: 416, 3/28/02

– from Probability’s Nature and the Nature of Probability, p. 32.

Even Richard Dawkins has stated that such intelligent design ay be possible (Ben Stein, Expelled: The Movie, 2008.), p. 32

And if so many great scientists entertain the idea, it must be substantial, so there.

Comments

Mung, I did NOT "allege that ID was creationism", at any time. And no, I am not "claiming [you] leveled a general charge of equivocation against [me]" but you have leveled more than one, hence the plural. As for ID and the supernatural: yes, I am entirely aware that ID theory does not require a supernatural Designer. Indeed I have been making that point explicitly in post after post, claiming that there is no "censorship" of Design in science, only the methodological exclusion of the supernatural. In fact that is my very point in this thread - that there is nothing uncontroversial about Dawkins putting forward a Design hypothesis. What would be extraordinary would be if he put forward a supernatural Designer hypothesis, which he explicitly did not, and clarified that repeatedly in response to Stein's questioning. There is no reason for any atheist to be appalled at Dawkins' responses in that interview. Nor for any IDist to be particularly surprised at an atheist considering the possibility that life was Designed. However, a scientist, not being concerned with the supernatural, having inferred design in a pattern, goes on to investigate the nature of the designer. Mung: how would you investigate the nature of the designer you infer from the patterns in biology? I had understood (but perhaps misunderstood) you to say that this question wasn't in the domain of ID. If so, can you explain why not? If not, can you say how you think the nature of your inferred designer could be investigated?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

Hi Mung, It's great that Lizzie is reading SITC. I hope that she'll recognise that the supernatural is not a concern of ID theory by the time she finishes it. Also, Lizzie was trying to explain Dawkins' gaffe: that will take anyone to strange and mysterious places!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Hey GUN, I completely disagree. Look at the second paragraph of my quote. That is unequivocally concerned with ID theory. The first is too really: you're reading far too much into the speech marks (which are just there to introduce the subject to British Guardian readers, most of whom are clueless on this subject).Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Which is why I’ve probably earned a reputation for nitpicking (and why I find Mung’s charges of equivocation ironic – equivocation is exactly what I am trying, unsuccessfully, it seems, to avoid!).
You're claiming I leveled a general charge of equivocation against you rather than a specific charge in a specific case?Mung_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Why are you mentioning the supernatural Lizzie?
Because that's been her MO all along. iirc, one of her first posts alleged that ID was creationism. Better than dealing with ID on the merits I suppose.Mung_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Chris Doyle: It's easy, obviously, to find quotes of Dawkins criticizing the DI, "ID" researchers, the "ID movement", etc, but that isn't what I asked for. I think it's clear in that quote that he's referring to the "Intelligent Design Movement". There's a reason he put it in quotes. He's obviously referring to something specific that he sees as a front for Creationism - and that's what he's criticizing there. Francis Collins and others at BioLogos, for instance, echo much of what Dawkins says there, but they are also strong advocates that there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.goodusername_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Chris, I'm a night owl, so I was up until around 3am and for me, at nearly 5pm, it's like morning. :) Have a good night.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Hi CY, if Lizzie has any sense, she'll be in bed now (nearly 1am over here and that's where I should be too). I'll be looking forward to her response (and others hopefully) tomorrow though!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

So Lizzie, Coupled with what Chris pointed out in 47, Dawkins has contradicted himself, and it's quite clear even if the film was edited. This is the very issue that is motivating TalkOrigins to place a bid on the film. If they end up winning the bid and the material doesn't happen to have what they're looking for, I doubt if they'll follow through with what they intend - to post all of the extra material online. And if they refuse to do so, we should call them on it.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, "They seem entirely uncontroversial to me. All he’s saying is that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with pursing a design hypothesis, and he makes one up on the spot. That doesn’t mean he thinks it’s supported by data, and clearly he doesn’t." I had to respond to this, because I don't think you're getting it at all. That he doesn't think ID is supported by data is not the issue. Nobody is saying that he does. The issue is as Ben Stein clearly states: "Wait a minute, Richard Dawkins thought that Design might be a legitimate pursuit?" I don't think the average viewer is thinking that Dawkins agrees with the evidence suggested by ID theorists; what is "controversial" as you say, is that he thinks that one design scenario might be a worthy scientific endeavor, which would contribute to "issues in genetics and evolution."CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

GUN, prepare to be very surprised. Dawkins said the following: What is wrong, then, with teaching both sides of the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism or "intelligent design" (ID)? And, by the way, don't be fooled by the disingenuous euphemism. There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip (with some success, thanks to loads of tax-free money and slick public-relations professionals) under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.... Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.researchChris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, "He doesn’t say he thinks there is a signature in the cell, just that you might look for one, and it seems clear to me that he was thinking of Craig Venter’s watermarks in his Synthetic Life, not the “Signature in the Cell” as proposed by Meyer." I don't think your really able to get at what he was thinking when he said it. He doesn't go into that much detail. The real issue, is he did not dismiss some form of detection of intelligence in biology as being outside of science. He did say "signature," and one can assume that what he meant was something that identifies the "seeders" as designers. After all, that's the question that Ben Stein asked him: " what do you think is the possibility that the..the intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in Darwinian (?) evolution?" You can't separate his response from the question. I think it's clear he knows what ID is and what it proposes, and he offered a scenario in which he would accept it as science: panspermia. I think you're trying to read too much into his response. He clearly offered one form of design detection as legitimately scientific; as potentially lending something to "issues in genetics or evolution" in direct response to that question. Of course the film was edited, so whether that's the answer he gave directly to the question, we'll never know, but that's what's implied by the part of the interview we were shown.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

One shouldn't conflate criticism of material released from ID researchers or the DI as being criticism of the search for intelligent design itself. Unless someone can point out where Dawkins has said that looking for intelligent design isn't possible or is unscientific or not worth doing, I suspect that that's what Stein and others have done. (I'm not ruling out the possibility that Dawkins said such a thing - but I'd be very surprised.)goodusername_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

Don't get me started on Rowan Williams, Lizzie!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Looking at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology to detect the signature of an Intelligent Designer is ALL ID theory proposes we do. Why are you mentioning the supernatural Lizzie? That's irrelevant here. "And that Designer could well be an intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." (why even make this qualification if the only possible cause of design in nature is evolution?) The fact that Dawkins voluntarily offered this "intriguing possibility" can only mean that he is thinking about a signature of Design, in living matter, that is caused by an actual Designer: the Meyer-type signature no less... not a signature of Design that only appears to be caused by an actual Designer. You saying that this is what he really has in mind is just putting words in his mouth that he didn't utter and making excuses for him Lizzie. No doubt, Dawkins would now agree with you though! Anything to put a better spin on his unguarded honesty!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

You have a point, Chris, come to think of it, the atheists I know do seem to go in for facial hair (the male ones anyway). But then there's Rowan Williams...Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

I dunno Driver, there's some pretty nasty characters where I work... and they're fond of their facial hair!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, I thought he said "D cells" whatever that means. I went over it several times to listen, because I wasn't sure what he meant. I think your's is correct.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Yes, but, CY, the signature I think he's looking for is, as I said, something like a clue "Made by God" in Hebrew, coded in codons, or something. He's certainly not inferring it from the "signature" that Meyer infers, and he doesn't give any methodology at all. He just says it's possible in principle, which it is. But we know already, from his writings, that he thinks the "appearance of design" can be created by evolutionary processes. So he certainly doesn't think that the Meyer-type signature is such a signature. Surely no-one could seriously believe that he did?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

"heh, CY, could have saved myself some transcription time!" 20 minutes was all it took.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

“How do you date dinosaur fossils?” they’ll answer, without hesitation “Carbon dating” (or simply won’t have a clue)." I would simply ask them out to dinner, but they're not my type. :)CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

heh, CY, could have saved myself some transcription time!Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

Well, perhaps I'm starting to understand why "atheists hate the clip"! Honestly, I'm amazed by how his words could be so misunderstood. They seem entirely uncontroversial to me. All he's saying is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with pursing a design hypothesis, and he makes one up on the spot. That doesn't mean he thinks it's supported by data, and clearly he doesn't. But it establishes the important point that there is no intrinsic scientific reason to reject a Design hypothesis, but that that wouldn't allow us to infer a Divine designer. Here's a transcript of the passage in question:
Stein: what do you think is the possibility that the..the intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in Darwinian (?) evolution? Dawkins: Well, it could come about in the following way, it could be that at some earlier time that somewhere in the universe that some civilisation could have evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded on to perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possiblity, and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature, of some sort of designer... Stein (voiceover): Wait a minute, Richard Dawkins thought that Design might be a legitimate pursuit? Dawkins: ...and that designer could well be an intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but that higher intelligence would have itself to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process, it couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously, that's the point. Stein (Voiceover): so Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of designers, such as God.
It seems perfectly clear to me that Stein is misrepresenting Dawkins, in his voiceover: Dawkins is not, and did not claim to be, a supporter of the theory that life is best explained by Intelligent Design. All he says is that the possibility exists that life on this planet was designed by a more advanced life form on another planet, but in that case, that other life form would have had to have evolved by some Darwinian, or similar process. In other words that he doesn't rule out design in principle, but that he does rule out inferring a supernatural designer. So much so absolutely uncontroversial. He doesn't say he thinks there is a signature in the cell, just that you might look for one, and it seems clear to me that he was thinking of Craig Venter's watermarks in his Synthetic Life, not the "Signature in the Cell" as proposed by Meyer.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Yes, in truth, it doesn't matter either way, CD. It would be far too simplistic to blame any one thing for Hitler. On mere correlation, we could claim that moustaches cause fascism.Driver_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, "He wasn’t endorsing the ID inference as currently drawn." "Endorsing" is a big word. Here's what was said in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8 Stein: What do you think is the possibility that there's intelligent design...might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution? Dawkins: Well...It could come about in the following way: It could be that, uh..at some earlier time; somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology; and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps this...this planet. Um, now...that is a possibility, and an...intriguing possibility. And I suppose it might be possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the D cells of biochemistry/molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer. Stein (narrating): Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit? Dawkins: And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. That higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point. Calling panspermia (which is essentially intelligent design) an "intriguing possibility" may not actually be endorsing; in that he thinks it ought to be a research project. However, he's not denying that it is reasonably scientific. In fact he gives us a methodology that is exactly what ID theorists are doing - looking for a signature in a cell. His only caution seems to stem from his own a priori metaphysical beliefs, that whoever the designer is would have to be "explicable," and could not have just "jumped into existence spontaneously." I think he's clearly talking about theism as if we believe that God first of all is not explicable, and that He just popped into existence. His understanding of theism is really quite limited.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Don't go there Driver, it will backfire on you: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/was-hitler-influenced-by-darwin-or-by-christianity-some-thoughts-on-posts-by-mr-godwin.htmlChris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Hitler wasn't an atheist.Driver_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Well CY, never mind ID, if you ask 99.9% of people here in the UK "How do you date dinosaur fossils?" they'll answer, without hesitation "Carbon dating" (or simply won't have a clue). As the David Bowie song goes, we're Absolute Beginners!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth states; 'You have some very odd ideas about atheists ba77' Nothing personal, Its just the facts Ma'am!!! The last century was, by far, the most brutal in all human history, with atheistic-totalitarian regimes leading the even Hitler in monstrous atrocities!!! Why should you find my ideas odd about this, instead of rightly finding atheism itself 'odd' for being at the forefront of such unmitigated horror???bornagain77_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

He calls it an "intriguing possibility". Coming from Dawkins, that's a major endorsement. He may have dropped his guard, but he's still committed to atheism. Remember, if we were made by aliens who had the probabilistic resources to make themselves by accident, which is the very idea he advanced (why mention it if he thought it was unscientific?) then that is COMPLETELY consistent with Intelligent Design.Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply