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

Chris, Understanding influences in British culture may actually help us understand the man (Dawkins). Recently an issue has been his refusal to debate William Lane Craig. This may be due to the fact that he's unfamiliar with who he is; while now, I gather that much of that unfamiliarity has diminished since their first encounter. But I don't think Dawkins realizes just how popular Craig is in America, and we perhaps don't realize how less known he is in Britain. But I won't let Dawkins off the hook on that one. He should know a lot more than he does; particularly that Craig is not a supporter of young Earth creationism. I think most Americans who are ID savvy completely understand Dawkins' position on the possibility of ID. If TalkOrigins gets their hands on the rights to the "Expelled" film, we may have an opportunity to see more of that interview (or maybe less). If they win the bid, they plan to post the outtakes and transcripts online. They're also talking about editing the film to give it a new spin. I wonder what that will be. Perhaps they'll edit out Dawkins' interview where he talks about the matter. That would be in their best interests. Since they've declared that they are going to release more of the film (believing that there were things the producers never intended us to see and/or understand), I think we should call them on it if they don't.CannuckianYankee_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Well, no, because he doesn't think we can! He seemed to be thinking along the lines of something like Craig Venter's watermarks.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Hang on Lizzie, claiming we can detect a signature of Intelligent Design in the cell isn't endorsing the ID inference? I'd go back to Chapter 1 of SITC if you still think that!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Well, it sounds to me as though none of these people has actually listened to what Dawkins said. What he did say was completely uncontroversial, which is that there's nothing in principle unscientific about a design hypothesis. There was no reason for Stein to be so surprised, and no reason for any atheist to be shocked. He wasn't endorsing the ID inference as currently drawn.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Don't worry Bornagain77, I live and work in London: there's plenty of everything here, not just atheists. And they're certainly outnumbered by believers. Driver's quite right when he says that most atheists (indeed most people here in Great Britain) are barely acquainted with ID. We're lagging far behind the USA in that respect, but there has been notable progress in the last decade. One last thing Driver, most British atheists I know hang on to every word that Dawkin utters. His startling endorsement of ID is something that they cannot get their heads around and the excuses they make on his behalf are very creative. My favourite is, "He only said that because he's such a nice man!"Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Well, it just isn't an issue in the UK. There are atheists in all the major parties, some in government. We just aren't a very religious country, and people don't tend to vote along religious lines (except in N Ireland, and maybe parts of Scotland). And all the atheists I know are pretty keen on hospitals, schools, literacy, democracy, civil liberties, human rights, science, etc. You have some very odd ideas about atheists ba77 :) They are just people who don't believe in god or gods. That doesn't stop them being ethical, compassionate or public spirited.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

'in Britain, atheism just simply isn’t a big deal. And certainly not a bar to high office, unless you are aiming at royalty.' I shudder at the thought that atheists should gain complete power of government: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism) http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm fn: I believe the body count for abortion is over 50 million now in America since it was legalized in 1973: Born Alive – Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen http://www.faithandfacts.com/abortion/born-alive-abortion-survivor-gianna-jessen/ ===================== “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites …and Other Lies You’ve Been Told,” (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010) The Christian divorce rate myth (what you’ve heard is wrong) Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34656 further notes; Lives Saved By Christianity Excerpt: here is an article, detailing how Christianity improved the status of women and saved millions of people in ancient Rome from death by female infanticide and from the plagues which periodically swept the Roman Empire: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-start/#comment-337994 From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life ============== Not only do Atheists have beliefs(instead of non-belief), but their beliefs are exactly opposite of the truth! From Atheism to Theism In Reverse http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9C2E1MNUbornagain77_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Yes, it's a very strange interview. I think the British/American dimension is an important part of that, actually. It's almost as though Stein is goading Dawkins to say things that, in fact, Dawkins is more than willing to say, in the hope of cornering him, but in fact he's pushing on an open door. Perhaps an American Dawkins would be more circumspect, but in Britain, atheism just simply isn't a big deal. And certainly not a bar to high office, unless you are aiming at royalty.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Most atheists in Britain only have a vague idea of what Intelligent Design is. Not all of them wander to these parts of the internet. In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of my friends who are atheists have never visited Richard Dawkins' website either. In London, being an atheist isn't generally considered a big deal (There are a lot of us), so Dawkins is irrelevant to most people. They don't care how he is represented, much less in a film they haven't seen.Driver_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Stein indeed doesn't say that Dawkins believes we came from aliens, but that was the story spreading all around the internet and radio within ID and Creationist circles, and so it's an easy mistake to make if you don't have the transcript. I'm not sure why Stein was so surprised at Dawkins describing a way to look for intelligent design. Has Dawkins ever said that we shouldn't look for intelligent design in nature? Or that searching for such design wasn't possible? Or that there was no scientific way to do so? Overall, Stein's behavior in the interview was very odd. He follows up every instance of "I don't know" with "how do you know", and asks Dawkins, who he knows is an atheist, over and over (and over) again if he believes in a god (at least 5 times).goodusername_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

ba77: it's not as funny as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY :DElizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

It's been interesting being here, Chris, I have to say. I've learned a lot. I can't say I've changed my basic position, and I don't want to give any one the impression that I'm more of a theist than I am (I don't believe in an afterlife, except in a very attenuated sense, and I don't believe in a God who created a universe for a specific purpose). But in many ways, my personal theology remains not radically changed from what it always was, when I did believe in a transcendental creator God that I would meet in some sense, in some form of existence beyond my earthly life. But what I have learned is that while people like me, and other atheists, obviously differ profoundly from theists like you, and other IDists on certainly key matters, that a lot of the vehemence, and, in particular, the assumptions that the other side are motivated by desire to retain an a priori "world view" rather than an honest pursuit of truth, arises from mutual misunderstanding of the actual arguments at issue. Some of this is simply terminological - as in the words "supernatural", "information", "design", "intelligence", "random", "necessity", "intentional", etc. 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!). That's why I find Meyer's clarity of thinking, and prose, very refreshing. There are some things I think he gets absolutely wrong (though of course I may find my mind changed as I keep reading) but at least it is clear to me what he is referring to, how he is defining it, and the reasoning by which he reaches his conclusions. If nothing else, I hope that by being able to thrash out these issues, we may least emerge clearer about precisely where we disagree. A clear problem statement is an essential precursor to any resolution :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Perhaps atheists hate this clip more: Dawkins [played by Hitler] gets angry about William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqr73wbIajcbornagain77_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Well, if Stein doesn't elsewhere in the movie characterise Dawkins position in the manner Dawkins seems to have imagined, then clearly Dawkins got it wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. And if you know of atheists who hate the clip, well, fair enough! I certainly know plenty who would agree with Dawkins that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with design as a scientific hypothesis, although they would also agree with Dawkins (and with me) that you can't infer the supernatural from design, and, also with Dawkins' position (and mine) that evolutionary processes can create the appearance of intentional design, which would mean that inferring a Designer, even an alien, one, from biological organisms is not a valid inference in the face of a good alternative hypothesis for the observed patterns. But of course I accept that I have not persuasively made my case here :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Glad to hear you're getting on with SITC so far. Now then, Dawkins definitely misrepresents Stein as he tries to repair some of the damage he did while endorsing Intelligent Design (it is an "intriguing possibility" he says). Dawkins endorsing ID is a bit like the GMC endorsing Andrew Wakefield or Obama saying "Maybe Osama had a point". You, Lizzie, are not a typical evolutionist, nor are you a typical atheist. Ask around your stauncher religion-hating acquaintances and gauge their reaction to that exchange. The ones that I've spoken to refuse to believe it's true! It's a real kick in the teeth for those who would dismiss ID as religious nonsense, that's for sure.Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

oops missed this part:
Of course atheists hate this clip: Dawkins is a hero for many of them and, in this moment of unguarded honesty, he has just endorsed Intelligent Design.
. But there's no problem in "endors[ing] Intelligent Design". And I've yet to see any evidence (though I guess there may be some) that atheists hate the clip, apart from Dawkins himself, and there is no evidence that Dawkins objected to being caught saying what he did, just to Stein's (either remembered or mis-remembered) summary. Of course Intelligent Design is a valid subject for scientific investigation, and panspermia at least seemed like a promising line of investigation for a while (although not usually with the alien design part). But in other areas of research, detecting Design is a perfectly valid approach. As Dawkins says, it's extending the inference to a Divine Designer that goes beyond what scientific methodology can do.
How you finding Signature in the Cell so far?
I'm finding it very clearly written, which is good :) I'm about a third of the way through.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

OK, well, perhaps Dawkins is misremembering then (in which case, it's not the clip that angered him, but what he misremembered about it). Do the words Dawkins thought he remembered not appear in the film? They aren't in the clip. In which case, fair enough (although I doubt Dawkins was deliberately misrepresenting Stein, my guess is that he was genuinely angered by the whole presentation - after all, he makes the point that he wasn't able to record the exact words). But we still go back to ba77s point - why would "atheists" (plural) hate that clip? Apart from Dawkins who didn't like the way Stein summarised his view? It's a point I've made repeatedly - that there is no censorship of intelligent design arguments in science, there could be perfectly good design hypotheses, an example being the one Dawkins gave. Indeed it's hard to know what point Stein was trying to make.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Hiya Lizzie! What Stein actually said at those points of the interview was: "Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought Intelligent Design might be a legitimate pursuit?" and "So, Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certain types of Designers such as God." Based on what Dawkins had just said, Stein was absolutely correct to point this out don't you agree? It is also very revealing that Dawkins felt the need to put a different, misrepresentative spin on what Stein said. Of course atheists hate this clip: Dawkins is a hero for many of them and, in this moment of unguarded honesty, he has just endorsed Intelligent Design. How you finding Signature in the Cell so far?Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Well, it's not the clip in your link that seems to have annoyed Richard Dawkins but the way it was introduced/commented on:
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."
That part doesn't seem to be included in the clip. But yes, I'll bet Dawkins was annoyed at that, if that's what Stein said in the movie. I would be too. It's a complete misrepresentation of what Dawkins says in the clip.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Does Richard Dawkins count as an atheist? Lying for Jesus? By RICHARD DAWKINS http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394bornagain77_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Well, in that case, what is the evidence that any atheist does hate that clip?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Since when do 'atheists' have *reasons* for any of their hatreds?Ilion_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Why would an atheist hate that clip, ba77?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Here is the Dawkins UFO clip; - Atheists so hate this clip! :) Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259/bornagain77_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

CD: Good catch. And, extending: if we are complex then the aliens "must" be more complex yet . . . Gkairosfocus_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

But if aliens made us, who made the aliens? If you can't answer that question, then Science Says we MUST believe that those prime numbers and hyperspace blueprints are just a product of chance and necessity!Chris Doyle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

ET, call home! (Or, at least, call us and send us the blueprint for the hyperspace ship to come visit . . . Or, is it that we would most likely turn it into an invasion. Oh, well.)kairosfocus_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply