Dawkins offers panspermia as a hypothesis that is at least plausible as a scientific rendering of the intelligent design intuition. He does not support or promote the idea, for just the reason you cite – there’s not a shred of evidence for such a visitation or seeding from aliens or other intelligence outside this planet.
Thanks for an interesting comment.
I did a little research on Dawkins’ statements about panspermia, and as I said, he proposes it as an explanation for the origin of life – and as you point out, this explanation is not supported with any evidence.
But, that hypothesis AT LEAST can be posited in natural terms, as a natural phenomenon. As perfectly weak as that is, then, it’s a good example of what Intelligent Design thinking, where “God” is the designer, cannot even rise to.
You’re offering a philosophical and theological critique by asserting first, that a scientific approach is possible with unspecified, unknown, unobserved alien life forms. And second, that a scientific approach which has no evidence is superior to the evidence we already have from philosophical sources. You also specify “God” (which the design argument does not do) so you bring your own theological assumptions into the argument.
The first contradiction from Mr. Dawkins is that he supporting Intelligent Design by referring to, as yet, unknown alien life as the designer. This leads to an infinite regress in his explanation. Aliens seeded aliens who seeded aliens, etc to infinity. So, it’s not an explanation. It also says nothing about the origin of life itself, since he starts with alien life. He’s willing to make claims about evolution on other planets without having any data to work from. This is just storytelling – pure science fiction.
So there’s a proposed fantasy world of aliens seeding life on earth, but an unwillingness to deal with the philosophical support for design – as well as the theological evidence for the existence of God as Creator.
It’s not a good case with evidence, but it at least is a natural explanation, amenable to examination and discovery by evidence (even if no such evidence exists currently). “God did it” is impotent in this regard.
Again, you’re importing a theological opinion into the design argument when you mention “God”.
But more importantly, Dawkins’ reveals a prior commitment to only naturalistic explanations. He doesn’t give a reason for that. He accepts that life on Earth could have been started by an intelligent designer, but not that the universe could have been started by one. He sees the lack of evidence in support of abiogenesis, so he’s open to panspermia. That’s an “alien of the gaps” argument. But the very same design-detection that leads to a panspermia conclusion could also lead to the conclusion of a supernatural designer. In fact, the idea of a supernatural designer is far simpler and more reasonable. A beginning is required for any observed series of events.
The accusation is that Dawkins (et al) rule out intelligent design categorically, and dismiss design scenarios for biological life a priori. Dawkins points to the weak, but possible panspermia hypothesis to show that this accusation is false. He does and can provide scenarios where “intelligent design” would obtain in an evidence-based, scientific way.
This is quite a concession especially considering the Kitzmiller court case which ruled that Intelligent Design is not a scientific proposal.
Dawkins no more thinks DNA was designed by aliens than he thinks God did it. But he’s obligated, as we all are, to acknowledge that even if that scenario is completely bereft of supporting evidence, that scenario would be completely legit as a scientific answer if there WERE supporting evidence, which there logically could be.
This is true of any imagination we might have. Giant, invisible unicorns might be flying around, and that’s a “completely legit” scientific proposal if there were supporting evidence.
Let’s take it farther … Dawkins’ aliens could have evolved immense powers. They could be ruled by a single alien that has reached a peak of power and intelligence – far beyond human capabilities. This alien could have directed the seeding of planet earth. (I could write fantasy stories like that all day.
).
So what we’d have is a super-human, ultra powerful and intelligent alien that consciously seeded life on earth. In other words, a god figure. But this god is just asserted, through blind faith. It’s (his?) existence is not explained philosophically.
Again, this, however (apparently), is preferable to classical philosophical support for the existence of a necessary, first being as source of being and creator of the universe.
There’s no way in principle, by contrast to get to this same potential with the intuition that a “supernatural Yahweh did it”.
Again, you’re importing some specificity that the design argument doesn’t propose by naming the designer Yahweh. That’s an indication of a bias in your approach - and a strawman. The design argument does not bring us directly to Yahweh or to the Blessed Trinity.
The fact that Mr. Dawkins publicly supports the plausibility of an alien designer seeding life on earth is simply more support for the design argument.
If there are intelligent designers in space - then we would know that by observing and identifying design.
