Is someone trying to get Dr. Crick's DP taught in science classes?
Crick didn't just dream up DP for a lark. He asked a simple question: Could there be a planet elsewhere where the origin of life was more probable than Earth? If yes (and that is quite likely) then life would have evolved there to a high degree of technology long before it did here. Given that interplanetary space flight is probably very unrealistic, wouldn't these beings want to "spread the good news"? If so, then they could have seeded the galaxy (panspermia) and here we are. DP presupposes evolution since the "sperm" would likely be some very primitive and highly resistant life form (i.e. spore forming bacterium).
I always used to mention DP in college level courses when abiogenesis came up. There is little to support DP other than conjecture, but there are also few nails in its coffin.
But it certainly can be mentioned and discussed as a possibility in the scientific community and presumably in the science class without instigating the deafening cry of, "It is not science" and/or "It does not meet the criteria for a theory".
While both of these allegations may be true...Dr. Crick, a Noble Prize winner, had no problem putting the "theory" out there in spite of the lack of scientific evidence.
Was he anti-scientific in doing so?
Is Crick's Directed Panspermia harmful to scientific discovery and advancement?