Re: Evolutionary rate

From: George Murphy (
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 12:05:13 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Armstrong: "Re: Evolutionary rate"

    Dick Fischer wrote:
    > Don Winterstein wrote:
    > >But Crick is the guy who, in his book, Life Itself, claimed that life could
    > >not have originated on Earth but had to have an extraterrestrial source.
    > If we can get flying saucers and space aliens out of our heads, and just
    > look at the history of our earth and universe this idea has far more
    > substance than it may appear to have at first blush.
    > Our earth and sun originated less than 5 billion years ago, but the
    > universe is dated at 13.7 billion years. What do you think was going on
    > for the first 8.7 billion years?
    > Were the elements in our earth and solar system "cooked down" in a star
    > which exploded in a novation, or was there simply a giant "poof"?
    > Assuming the first scenario, was there life on planets which might have
    > surrounded this earlier star, the precursor to our solar system?
    > Did biological life which may have existed on a primal "earth" and
    > vaporized in a novation over 5 billion years ago survive to seed our early
    > earth roughly 4 billion years ago?
    > What would have created life on an earlier planet? I would assume the same
    > Creator we worship today did it. But just like we don't know how it was
    > accomplished here, we also wouldn't know how it might have appeared on an
    > earlier "earth." Shifting the origination of life to another terrain puts
    > us no nearer to an ultimate answer.

            Dick is quite right that Crick's "directed panspermia" doesn't solve the basic
    problem of the origin of life but just moves it farther back in time. Who designed &/or
    developed the ETs? (This is also why the argument of IDers that the Intelligent
    Designer need not be supernatural is pointless.) & of course neither Crick nor anyone
    else has yet given a satisfactory explanation of chemical evolution. My point was not
    to defend Crick but simply to note that the claim that the origin of life must have been
    miraculous has no theological basis & that those who who make it are quite unnecessarily
    making targets of themselves & Christianity in general.



    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 10 2003 - 12:05:13 EDT