Science mixed with Creationism

[Godhead]

I don’t know why science says that the bible is not scientific fact. According to science, all life came from the water. In Genesis, it the proof is right there—where it says, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Scientists in all their observations fail to see any connection between their claim and what is written in the bible. As you know, the Spirit is a life giving spirit of which I will demonstrate clearly.
According to evolutionary science, life sprung from a single cell organism. Why did life find it necessary to evolve into more complex-structural organisms? It was not necessary but as you know the Spirit of God was with it; as a spirit is a life-giving spirit; and in the spirit of Jesus—so you may have life and have it more abundantly. Can you see where this would apply to even the simplest life form, the single cell organism?

As being a life-giving spirit, he, the spirit of God is one that raises questions. Imagine a single cell organism, at an ‘insignificant’ level—that organism, knew that it was in an environment or ‘world’ that was larger than it. In it’s cellular structure, as the spirit of God moved upon it, just as he moves upon all things—that cell asked ‘what is this place.’ The first question or what relates to that first question is Why?
With the power of God, in order for life to evolve—mutation became possible in the process of answering the first question.

From that first question sprung all living-organisms; life that was driven by Spirit. In all life forms that first question is still being pondered, what or Why? From it’s advent, the Spirit, the five senses were derived and eventually man; whom is separate from all life forms in the respect of reason and creativity. When the simplest of questions were answered; and those being what is necessary to existence; of which is a form of a being. And if you can perceive, to give flesh form, the life-giving Spirit chose the simplest of answers.

 

[Godhead]

A question can be raised—why wasn’t man given four arms and ten legs. Out of necessity to survival the Spirit chose symmetrical simplicity, which is evident in all life forms—they are symmetrically simple. This is perhaps one principal that Spirit-driven life acquired. And it is evident that the Spirit that moves upon all life is able to do some things in one kingdom that it cannot do in another kingdom. For example, in the reptile kingdom, the spirit found that the best answer was to make them cold-blooded. In the insect kingdom the spirit found that it could create animals with multiple legs; whereas in the mammal kingdom it was not necessary to create an animal with more than four legs. The Spirit is one that raises questions and solves the problems with the best and most simplistic answers, hence, symmetrical-simplicity.

To put it in perspective, the spirit of God is the one that formed man out of the dust from the ground—A truth spoken in regards that man is organic and all his flesh came from the organics of the earth. And the Gods spoke, let us form man in our image and after are likeness. Hence, in the image of God, man was given a mind that could handle truth; and with truth is reason and creativity, amongst other things such as; love, however love was something granted by the Spirit which evident in all of creation; For example, a mother giving milk to her young.

As the Spirit of God raised man up to have dominion over all the earth—that Spirit gave man the task of answering that first question—what or Why? And this is evident in man’s reasoning and creativity, man is always pondering this question. Evolution is in fact occurring, not only in the flesh but in thought. If life is driven by Spirit and the Spirit is one that raises questions then in some significant level—the Spirit of man, which is the same life-giving spirit is passing answers in mutable DNA.

 

[Godhead]

If man is made in the image of God, after their likeness then the ultimate form is already here—you are wearing it. Perhaps, DNA is still being moved by the spirit, most definitely, in order to ‘tweak’ man in some respects, such as; a longer lifespan or whatever the perfect being would require, in all of man’s perfection. Jesus is the example of perfection. In his Spirit, which is God the Father, he was able to perform miracles, meaning that the perfect human has power to transcend reality and control it—that is the inevitable course of man as his imagination dictates—to rise above reality and control it. If it is within man’s imagination and resembles a perfect image of truth then the Spirit which moves upon the DNA and mutates it—the Spirit will manifest it through the flesh, however, it is not man that is capable of the power to perform miracles but it is the Spirit which is performing the miracles through man—that life-giving spirit.

Immortality is the ultimate goal of evolution because even though it is man’s purpose to possess the love of God, first and foremost, it is also his purpose or mindfulness to live forever; of which is the purpose of life is to live and to love to live. It is the spirit to raise the questions in man as it manifests itself through man. Like saying, Adam, what do you want out of life. Adam replies, to live long and prosper. And the Spirit says, No Adam—that is not your want but the Spirit of God talking through you and manifesting it’s goals. Why? Because it is given to all-living things to carry the task of life; and that is to answer the question—what or Why? Eternal life is just one of the answers that the Spirit of life came across and with that answer, it manifests itself to all living things because survival is upon all of life’s minds; but the severe depths of survival have been placed within the human breast, especially.

Now I turn my words to opposition—that it is conclusive to reality. As all opposites exist, Love and hate, attraction and repulsion, fear and comfort, good and evil, God and Satan. Satan was once thought to be an antediluvian or fossil of our energy; but that is far from fact since we are able to establish God’s possessions: Love, attraction, comfort, good, etc…And we can establish Satan’s possessions: hate, repulsion, fear, evil, etc…

However it is one Spirit that moves all. The Spirit of life is one that raises questions; but without opposition that first question—what or Why?__would have never been raised. To put it in perspective, life and the world came into opposition; therefore we can separate God’s possession which is life; and we can separate Satan’s possession which is the world, hence, Satan is the ruler of this world or the Spirit of This World is Satan. Now, a spirit of wickedness can be seen more clearly. Does Satan exist in form, perhaps, as an angel (as you know angels created the world) but it is evident that is Spirit is manifested through the possession of death; of which is the ultimate evil and it’s summation. However, the life-giving Spirit is one that works on all things; finding it necessary that opposition may be the significant part of existence and what in fact, allows the world to evolve. Without opposition there would be no questions raised.

To put it in perspective, And Satan stood upon the Lord’s right hand and said, I will be the Lord’s adversary. Opposition becomes true friendship; as without opposites there is no progression. Satan provides the world and the life-giving Spirit provides the questions and the answers. Therefore, enemies are reconciled to the infernal nature of life—that is, without opposition there is no progression.

To move onto the evolution of thought, one must consider that evil becomes necessary to the progression of the answers we seek. Without tales of Chivalrous knights slaying evil dragons, Virtue would become an insignificant portion to existence. Therefore, evil becomes a necessity to thought. Some atheists or even God-haters claim that the God the bible is an evil God. For example, God destroys and turns Sodom into salt. An evil act in deed, but in a literary sense, a necessary evil because without the experimental in the philosophical world, one could do no other than repeat the same dull round again. Evil then becomes necessary to literature; so that out of evil, good arises in it’s midst. Take thou Shalt not kill, for example. The word kill is associated with evil; but becomes necessary to establish a higher good. That’s not to say that evil that manifests it physically is indeed unnecessary; however, to establish Higher laws or Virtues, evil becomes necessary in the literature; in order for God or Good to confront Satan or evil, so that such things as perfection in Love and Virtue can be established and provided for all of mankind.

 

[Godhead]

God is already perfect but man is not. Therefore it becomes necessary for God to commit seemingly evil acts in order for man to progress to the perfection of God. Hence, Sodom was turned into salt so that in literature, a lesson may be taught; in order for man to turn away from sin. God is not stupid, God knows that we all have our weaknesses and that in our weaknesses, we fall to sin. God is not a punisher but a teacher and his judgments are placed upon the earth by word of mouth and action, according to his plan for all of us. Hence, God revealed himself as a forgiving God, in his forgiveness of sins; but he is not blind to justice. The Spirit is a life-giving spirit and that is an image of truth. The Spirit already has the ultimate questions solved; but simply gives life little by little of what is meant to be because eternity is in love with the productions of time. In this image, of life-giving—that is what the Spirit of God is trying to establish—that life should be giving to not just friend but neighbor; hence, love thy neighbor. God is not blind to justice. If you are not a life-giving spirit then you are a life-taking spirit. If you do not take what God provides for then you have enmity with life; and the weeds are pulled out and burned in the fire because they are not made in the image of life but in the image of death—that is why if you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man, you have no life in you; but to further the point, the heavens have already been established. God knows before you do; of what life is all about, so it is just not simply eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ; but it is also living by the living water that pours through his mouth in word. Remember, The Holy Spirit is a life-giving spirit; and what one of the triune’s God has the other two have it; however, it is the Holy Spirit that is thee life-giving spirit. Therefore, it is said, if someone raises a word against the son of man he shall be forgiven; and if someone raises a word against the Father he shall be forgiven; but if someone raises a word against the Holy Spirit, he shall not be forgiven in heaven or on earth because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of life. If you hate life then you love death. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with death. It is all life. If you are so wicked that you hate life to the furthest degree then you are in opposition to life and in truth you are in opposition to the Holy Spirit, which is the life-giving Spirit.

Science is foolish because they, the scientists, do not speculate that a Spirit exists because they have no proof; but there so stupid that they do not see that it is Spirit of what drives them to question the world. God without science leads its followers into a pit because without God or that which is called a higher power or a higher value—the scientists fall into a bottomless pit. The blind lead the blind into pits. The scientist’s whole purpose in life is to peel the layers of reality or existence like an onion. But sooner or later they will find out that existence is infinitesimal in nature because it was created by an infinitesimal God. One who reflects his power through scientific observation.

Man, most men, place the hard questions upon God, in reflection; and the hardest question is Why? It may be interesting to find out if even God knows the answer to this question because if God always existed then there would be no reason that this question could be answered by even God. How would God know Why? If God always existed. I think Jesus sums it up perfectly, the man old in days would not hesitate to ask an infant seven days old what is the place in life and that man shall live! The old man being God, himself! Perhaps the image of a child reflects God perfectly because being an always-God, God becomes a child in the sight of that wonderful question, Why?

In the beginning, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters creating a single cell organism; and from that organism sprung all of life through question and observation derived from the organisms senses; so that life may have life and have it more abundantly.

Calliope for the mind. Use your imagination. It is that thing behind the narrow chink in your head. Its funny, some humans are still ape-like. Some still swing from trees and throw their feces around.

 

[Godhead]

I should have stated that I used this argument to replace my other topic called evolution. What are your thoughts on this topic, now that I provided a more concrete argument to the argument called evolution?

 

[Montalban]

Firstly, I’d like to state that I don’t tie my faith to science. Scietific truth is always in flux (that is, what is science fact today, may not be tomorrow)

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church’s teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”
pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

Fr Seraphim Rose said this about Genesis “Some Protestant fundamentalists tell us it is all (or virtually all) 'literal.” But such a view places us in some impossible difficulties: quite apart form our literal or non-literal interpretation of various passages, the very nature of the reality which is described in the first chapters of genesis the very creation of all things) makes it quite impossible for everything to be understood ‘literally’; we don’t even have words, for example, to describe ‘literally’ how something can come from nothing. How does God “speak”? - does He make a noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesn’t yet exist?”
Fr Seraphim Rose, (2000) “Genesis Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision”, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood; Platina, CA), p69

However “We (Orthodox) believe that the created world itself is a ‘mystery’ originating in the sovereign will of God accomplished by the action (energia) of the Holy Trinity. We confess in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (325/381) that the Father is the “Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible”, the Son “He through whom all things were made”, and the Holy Spirit, the “Creator of life” (zoopion).” goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8050.asp

Thus we accept that it did happen, even if we don’t understand how. God created.

However science, in its understanding of how life came from non-life has no real idea. Some suggest water. But that’s not the only theory about.
One of these is Panspermia.

Panspermia is the idea that life came from outer space. As with all theories this too is not homogenous. There’s a general panspermia theory, and a ‘directed’ panspermia theory. The former is a belief that life came here by random chance, such as on a meteor. The later is that life came here at the behest of an intelligence - such as aliens directing ships to earth laden with the molecules of life.

The building blocks of life “ Bakes said nitrogenated aromatics exist throughout the Milky Way galaxy.” spacedaily.com/news/life-04zw.html

“Francis Crick also thinks that life on earth may have begun when aliens from another planet sent a rocket ship containing spores to seed the earth. This is no idle thought; Crick first proposed it with chemist Leslie Orgel in 1973 in an article entitled “Directed Panspermia” in a professional science journal called Icarus. A decade later Crick wrote a book, Life Itself, reiterating the theory; in a 1992 interview in Scientific American on the eve of the publication of his latest book, Crick reaffirmed that he things the theory is reasonable.”
Behe, M, “Darwin’s Black Box”, p238

 

[Montalban]

Other theories:
“OPARIN HYPOTHESIS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

According to Oparin, origin of life was a gradual process and that life did not come into existence suddenly as a consequence of a combination of a whole series of chance occurrences. Here we shall describe in detail the A.I.Oparin hypothesis according to his book “The Origin of Life” especially his Coacervate model. Coacervate is a solution of high molecular weight chemicals i.e. Carbohydrates and proteins, etc. During various mechanisms of polymerization and condensation which were going to in the ocean water, a particular phenomenon of Cocervation took place, which according to Oparin, led to the origin of life. According to this, as a result of mixing of two different colloid solutions, some microscopic droplets become separated from them called as Coacervate (from Latin word acervus meaning pile). These droplets (Coacervates) contain almost all the Colloidal particles in specific ration and having the peculiar property of not allowing their drops (though saturated with liquid and water) to mix with surrounding water solution. The same property is exhibited by the protoplasm of Colloidal nature. Oparin considered these Coacervates as the sole living molecules which gave rise to the life. (14)”

hssrd.org/journal/summer2002/origin.htm

“COMPLEXITY THEORY

Stuart Kauffman, a theoretical biologist at the Sante Fe Institute, has put forth the idea that when the necessary elements of the cell formed in the primordial soup (nucleotides, lipids, and amino acids), they were instantaneously integrated into a system, a system which we know as the cell (Cohen, 1996).  Kauffman says this was not due to a miracle or chance, but was bound to occur.  He rejects other scientists' need to find some sort of genetic carrier like RNA or DNA, or even an aperiodic solid, saying that the life forms may have had no need for them.  (An aperiodic solid is one in which the atoms are arranged in some non-repeatable geometric pattern, such as a helix, that would allow for the variation within the structure that is necessary for genetic material).  He believes that such genetic carriers could have evolved after the new life was already flourishing.  Kauffman has even designed a computer model that shows that when a few organic molecules have developed some catalytic skills and reach the necessary level of diversity, then they spontaneously form an “autocatalytic set” (a life form).  His theory is based on the general complexity theory, which states that when a system reaches some critical level of complexity, it will naturally produce a degree of complex order (4).”

lifesci.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/22/JENNIFER.html

A. G. Cairns-Smith’s Callisto Theory: That life began from a type of living-clay

Richard Dawkins says of this “Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.”

originoflife.net/cairns_smith/

 

[Montalban]

Still more…
“Other Theories

In spite of the intense level of work on the RNA world in the last decade, there is no true consensus theory for precellular life. There are many theories. Here are some of the others —
A few scientists still say that DNA could succeed in starting life on its way (11). But even the shortest DNA strand needs proteins to help it replicate. This is the chicken-and-egg problem.
There is a “proteins first” school. For example, Manfred Eigen of Germany’s Max Planck Institute says, “There is no doubt that proteins, which are more easily formed, were first on the scene” (11.5). Of course, these first proteins must be much shorter than any used in life today, because of the sheer unlikelihood of forming useful long ones out of a soup of amino acids.
Physicist Freeman Dyson proposes to solve the chicken-and-egg problem with a double origin, one for metabolism (proteins) and one for replication (strands of nucleotides) (12).
In Seven Clues to the Origin of Life (13), A. G. Cairns-Smith says that clay crystals could have served as the scaffolding upon which the first short DNA or RNA genome was constructed. A new elaboration of this idea prompted one writer to wonder, “Primordial soup or crêpes?” (14). Even more recently, another tangent on this path leads to zeolite (14.5).
Biologists Harold J. Morowitz (15), David Deamer (16), and others (17), advocate a theory that could be paraphrased as “containers first.”
Jeffrey L. Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography holds the minority view that the early Earth was frozen and believes precellular life started in “cold soup” under the ice (18, 19).
Chemists Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser say the soup where life originated was actually quite hot, probably, near undersea volcanic vents, where iron and nickel sulfides might catalyze some of the necessary reactions (19.5-19.7).
Cornell Astronomer Thomas Gold wonders if life might have originated in a hot environment even deeper, in Earth’s crust (19.8).
Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute, says, “…whenever a collection of molecules contains enough different kinds of molecules, a metabolism will crystallize from the broth” (20).
Another idea is the “PNA world.” Because starting the RNA world is so difficult, there probably needs to be a pre-RNA world. PNA, or peptide nucleic acid, might have some of the properties necessary to constitute that world (21). This would be pre-precellular life.”

panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

 

[Montalban]

I should have stated that I used this argument to replace my other topic called evolution. What are your thoughts on this topic, now that I provided a more concrete argument to the argument called evolution?

Some may argue that technically the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not quite covering the same areas. The former is how life began and the later is how it evolved. Though Darwin himself postulated that there was some kind of primordial soup, and that most evolutionists also believe that life came about through material causes.

 

[ribozyme]

Some may argue that technically the theory of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not quite covering the same areas. The former is how life began and the later is how it evolved. Though Darwin himself postulated that there was some kind of primordial soup, and that most evolutionists also believe that life came about through material causes.

Do you want to discuss the merit of origin of life hypotheses in technical detail? Please say yes so I could divert my attention away for the race and intelligence controversy as the literature about this topic makes me sick and disgusted. I read a great deal of literature that concerns this topic, and I will be happy to clarify what is known and unknown.

 

[ribozyme]

Do you want to discuss the merit of origin of life hypotheses in technical detail? Please say yes so I could divert my attention away for the race and intelligence controversy as the literature about this topic makes me sick and disgusted. I read a great deal of literature that concerns this topic, and I will be happy to clarify what is known and unknown.

I meant to say I know a great deal about origin of life research when I said “this topic”. I do not want to know the details of the theories proposed by race fanatics such as J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Chris Brand, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Arthur Jensen.

 

[Montalban]

Do you want to discuss the merit of origin of life hypotheses in technical detail?

a) there’s more than one as I just evidenced
and
b) no, I don’t.

Please say yes so I could divert my attention away for the race and intelligence controversy as the literature about this topic makes me sick and disgusted. I read a great deal of literature that concerns this topic, and I will be happy to clarify what is known and unknown.

I have no idea what the ORIGIN OF LIFE issue has to do with race. Perhaps you’re thinking about the ORIGIN OF MAN issue?

I’ve just started reading Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany but I’ve read Wolpoff, M. *Race And Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction *. These books though sound the same deal with different aspects of ‘race’.

The first proposes (from what I’ve read) that there’s a causal link between Darwinism and Naizism. The second that races arose through the evolution of man in different regions of the world. (Along with) "Alan G. Thorne, Milford H. Wolpoff argued the polygenic or multiregional side of the modern human origins debate. They maintain that there is no single recent dispersal for modern humans, that humans originated in Africa and then slowly developed their modern forms in every area of the Old World. They also argue that the molecular geneticists’ view must be rejected because their reasoning is flawed.

According to the multiregional view mtDNA is not our only source of evidence. Fossil remains and artifacts represent a much more reliable and a monumental body of evidence. Multiregional evolution traces all populations to humans first leaving Africa over 1 mya (now known to be about 1.8 mya). Today distinctive populations maintain physical differences. The features that distinguish Asians, Australian Aborigines and Europeans are said to have evolved over a long period where these peoples are found today. "
jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/multiregional.html
see this for more of a summation than what I’ve posted here.
Other sites…
actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

geocities.com/acgyles/mreg.html

If you want to discuss then the rise of man theories, I’m happy to, but I think it’s off-topic!

 

[Montalban]

I meant to say I know a great deal about origin of life research when I said “this topic”. I do not want to know the details of the theories proposed by race fanatics such as J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Chris Brand, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and Arthur Jensen.

This thread’s more about the Origin of Life issue. I’m happy to discuss that here.

I particularly like directed panspermia.

Panspermia is the idea that life on earth began in outer space. The Directed Panspermia supporters believe that it was *sent *here (that is ‘directed’ - e.g by some alien race).

 

[ribozyme]

a) there’s more than one as I just evidenced
and
b) no, I don’t.

I have no idea what the ORIGIN OF LIFE issue has to do with race. Perhaps you’re thinking about the ORIGIN OF MAN issue?

I’ve just started reading Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany but I’ve read Wolpoff, M. *Race And Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction *. These books though sound the same deal with different aspects of ‘race’.

The first proposes (from what I’ve read) that there’s a causal link between Darwinism and Naizism.

Yes, there are creeps out there who use Darwinian evolution as a weapon to dehumanize people as you astutely pointed out. You are indeed correct this thread is about abiogenesis and I hope that by discussing the origin of life, my mind will be diverted by the acrimony and acerbity of other topics.

Regarding directed panspermia, it is not a testable hypothesis, and I do not know of any peer-reviewed publication that seriously considered it. I prefer hypotheses that can be testable in a laboratory setting.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, there are creeps out there who use Darwinian evolution as a weapon to dehumanize people as you astutely pointed out. You are indeed correct this thread is about abiogenesis and I hope that by discussing the origin of life, my mind will be diverted by the acrimony and acerbity of other topics.

Whether or not Darwinism was used or misused is a matter of conjecture, and not of itself science… one can’t scientifically determine that science is misused (though one could argue by the science so used that it is not good science; i.e… following one of the scientific methods - but the science used by the Nazis *is *science). Nazi science is science because it followed scientific method. Sure, they pursued avenues of investigation based on a different philosophy. Some of their findings are deemed to have been bad science, but there’s enough there that scientists might find useful - except our philosophy won’t allow us to use data that was obtained in such manner - which I agree with. It was such good science that the data is still applicable, but only because of ethics, it is debatable whether we should ever use it
see jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
or
stanford.edu/group/STS/techne4.shtml
Do you think we should? If we remove the Judeo-Christian ‘ethics’ and just have a ‘pure’ science, then surely we must! That some scientists won’t touch this scientific data because of their own ethical beliefs, not because it is ‘science’.

Regarding directed panspermia, it is not a testable hypothesis,

How do you know?
I should point out that I don’t believe in it, but I defend it as science as Nazi science is science. The reason I believe this is that as noted above, science, whether it is ‘used’ or misused depends on another set of parameters; such as ethics. I’ve met many people who put scientific truth above other systems of truth, and I feel that ethics, and religion are superior measures insofar as they act (as an over-arching theory) in determining whether science is used or misused.

and I do not know of any peer-reviewed publication that seriously considered it. I prefer hypotheses that can be testable in a laboratory setting.

A text I’d refer you to is
Sagan, C, (Ed.) “Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence: CETI”, 1973, MIT Press.

It is itself the publication of discussions of a committee of many scientists meeting to discuss where they believe the search will go. They talk of the various alien societies that might have sent this planet life. They even categorise these societies as ‘Type-I’, ‘Type-II’, & ‘Type-III’ societies.

“Interstellar transmissions via energy-markers (photons) or matter-markers (probes) appear to be energetically indistinguishable alternatives for advanced technical societies. Since only Type II and Type III civilizations realistically can afford beacons or starprobe technology, alternative distinguishability criteria suggest the possible superiority of intelligent artifacts for contact and communication missions among extraterrestrial cultures. A balanced, more cost-effective Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) strategy is proposed.”
rfreitas.com/Astro/InterstellarProbesJBIS1980.htm
Published in “Journal of the British Interplanetary Society”, Vol. 33, pp. 95-100, 1980

It is listed as among “Peer Reviewed Journal Publications and Other Recent Articles”
spsr.utsi.edu/articles/

They speculate that if there are alien civilizations out there they’d have to be of either Type II or Type III civilizations in order to undertake interstellar adventures.

“All SETI strategies may be termed “purposive” or “non-purposive,” depending on the assumption of alien motivation made by the human searcher. Purposive strategies presume that intelligent extraterrestrials (ETs) are now trying to contact us or gain our attention. If only we look in the right direction at the correct time in the proper way, we’ll find them. Non-purposive strategies make the presumptive either that the ETs are hiding from us or that they really don’t care one way or he other. If we find them at all, it will be purely by accident.”
rfreitas.com/Astro/InterstellarProbesJBIS1980.htm
As noted I don’t support this theory per se but it is science. For me the chief objection to this is that it doesn’t really answer the question about how life began, because it simply transfers the problem - because where did the aliens’ life come from?