By the way, what did Dawkins exactly said in the movie about Panspermia? For me Panspermia can be a kind of ID.
///////////
in No Intelligence Allowed Dawkins said he thought the genes came from space aliens. Likely he was echoing the sentiments of Francis Crick who discovered the double helix.
I saw Dawkins on Discovery last week opining that language was the new genetics. I about fell out of my chair when I heard that. Did that mean that language came from space aliens too?
Maybe
60 million years from now geologists studying the earth will see a layer where suddenly an advanced civilization appears—there won’t be any transitional forms—because 5000 years is just a sliver of sand in deep time. It will look like some space aliens set up shop. However, if they have a copy of the bible they’ll learn the truth. God himself came to visit the earth in the presence of Son.
See my post above on how Francis Bacon (& Decartes)screwed up the tree of knowledge for the english speaking world in the late 1500’s/early 1600’s.
Panspermia is a giant change the subject gambit.
It just moves the argument about the origin of life and intelligence to another planet. I fail to see how that’s an improvement.
While I’m generally in-line with the “God used evolution” folks, in these various discussions I’ve noticed something that is interesting, at least to me.
The violently anti-God and Stein bunch are appalled that misdeeds of people with a less than thorough understanding of evolutionary theory are used to discredit their hero Darwin. And have in fact been doing so for decades if not centuries.
Yet as a group Dawkins and others are perfectly happy to use the misdeeds in the past of people with a less than thorough understanding of Christianity to discredit that religion.
This is despite the obvious fact that Darwinism, like all science, is amoral. It may be able to tell us how things happen, but can provide exactly zero insight on whether what an action we are considering is right and wrong. The Nazis may have misunderstood Darwin, but they certainly weren’t violating his teachings. Any moral basis for action or inaction that a scientist might have is imported from somewhere else. It cannot be derived from the pursuit of knowledge.
The Inquisition and other Christian misdeeds, in contrast, are directly in contradiction with the words of Christ himself.
So why does criminal misbehavior in the name of Christ reflect badly on Christianity, while criminal misbehavior in the name of Darwin not reflect anything at all on Darwin?