Joined: Aug. 2007
|Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,12:08)|
|Erasmus: You can't be serious in saying evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Have you ever read "The Blind Watchmaker?" "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"?|
I hope I can clarify for you.
The mistake you're making is that because scientists are interested in the origin of life, and because scientists generally think the theory of evolution is correct, that the theory of evolution speaks to the origin of life. It does not, though these questions are related.
We're all interested in the origin of life (or many of us, anyway) but the theory of evolution doesn't even get started until the first replicating organism shows up on the scene. How did this first replicating organism form? That's an interesting question.
Panspermia doesn't even address the origin of life question (and please stop referring to it as the theory of panspermia - it hardly qualifies as a theory, more of a hypothesis with no data attached). Panspermia addresses the origin of life on Earth. It just moves the origin of life to another planet, and still leaves us the question of how life arose (on said other planet, galaxy, nebula, dark matter chunkoid, etc). Intelligent design says that there's a Designer. We don't know when, or where. And please don't ask. Oh, and He's pretty complicated. And nothing came before Him. But don't ask us how we know that.
But let's pretend for a moment that panspermia and intelligent design are equivalent. I think they're both bs, but I can't prove that panspermia is bs. It's just my personal prejudice.
Panspermia predicts several things that we can test experimentally. 1) That life arose somewhere else, and we could find it somewhere else. Okay, this one is difficult to detect, but NASA is ostensibly trying to ask this question by digging around on Mars with robots. 2) That we might find life on asteroids. 3) That the earliest life forms would be associated with periods of bombardment on Earth. 4) ??? These are what I can come up with off the top of my head. I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about panspermia.
Intelligent design makes the prediction that: 1) Things will be pretty complicated. Except that evolution also makes the prediction that things will be complicated. And how do you define complicated, anyway? Cause it looks complicated? So I guess that's not a really good predictor for intelligent design. Well then, we have prediction number 1) ???
Perhaps you can fill that in for me, Kevin?