In the strong version of panspermia, Darwinian evolution can produce variation that results from one or two point mutations, and can, by natural selection, lead to adaptation, or microevolution. But this is not the same as macroevolutionary progress requiring whole new genes that differ from known predecessors by dozens to hundreds of essential nucleotides. In strong panspermia, those new genes must be supplied from elsewhere.…In its strongest version, panspermia holds that intelligent life can only descend from prior intelligent life. Logically, therefore, intelligent life must have always existed, and what we have called “evolutionary progress” would actually be the local development of pre-existing, highly evolved life. This theory is fully scientific; there is nothing supernatural about it. I am attempting to name it Cosmic Ancestry. It responds to the informed criticism that Darwinism does not account for evolutionary progress.
Furthermore, Cosmic Ancestry does not extend science beyond its proper realm. Science can never answer some questions, like “Why is there anything at all?” According to Cosmic Ancestry, “Why is there intelligent life?” is another question that science cannot answer. Intelligent life appears to have always existed. Until evolutionary progress in a closed system is demonstrated, that’s as far as science can pursue the matter. Meanwhile, creationists are free to call intelligent life a miracle. Dissolving the disagreement between science and religion, we can turn to new questions. For example,
• Under what circumstances, if any, is evolutionary progress in a closed system possible?
• How could the big bang theory accommodate life from the eternal past?
• How does intelligent life arrive and develop?
Some of this sounds familiar, eh? BTW, Do you know of any peer reviewed papers on panspermia?
I see the use of panspermia often when abiogenesis problems are put forward.
The scientific community is also skeptical because we know Dembski's motives -he's never tried to hide them; and we know the motives of many of the people who are pushing to get ID into schools. (last part edited and/or ignored)
This is more of a thought experiment in the sense that you need to imagine the motives of both authors to be only for 'good old purely natural science' via panspermia. Anyway, I think you know what I’m going with this by asking ‘How would they be received differently by the scientific community and people on this forum and why?’
There's Orgel's original paper, and Crick and Orgel. I've seen several recent perr-reviewed papers which consider its feasibility. All of these assume the organism that came here was a microbe, and that evolution took care of all subsequent steps.