Well, okay, but is this science or religion? In what branch of science or with what natural phenomena does science ever argue, "This could be the result of some agency far more intelligent and powerful than ourselves." None. With rare exceptions such arguments originate with religious adherents.
That's kinda the whole point of SETI, though, isn't it? That there could exist signals out there that were created by some intelligence. Extrapolating from "an intelligence that's more powerful than ourselves" to the notion of gods is incredibly anthropocentric ("How dare there be intelligence elsewhere in the universe that is superior to ours"). We must acknowledge the real possibility that intelligence civilizations exist -- or have existed -- which are significantly more advanced than humanity at present.
There's nothing
inherently religious in what I am arguing. I'd call it exploratory science.
Now, it
does become religious when right-wing American Christian zealots attempt to co-opt the overall notion of teleology to suit their own agenda and desired power structures.
It can often be difficult to tease apart the idea of agency behind the origin of life and the cultural and ideological forces that have co-opted that theme and forced an interpretation on it. Yet I have consistently endeavored to highlight that distinction here -- that the notion of teleology in biological origins is not necessarily religious.
Let's confront the hypothesis of "DNA as an intelligently designed code" in a bit more detail. Upon first learning of the genetic code one could be forgiven for exclaiming, "My God, this couldn't have happened naturally." But then one asks where the DNA came from? From the parents. And where did their DNA come from? From their parents, and so forth back through all the ancestors and finally to when it wasn't even DNA. And how could species ever evolve? DNA copying is imperfect. And how does that not cause extinction of all life? Selection. And so forth with questions of ever broadening scope and answers that lead to an infinite supply of more questions.
Most scientists are familiar with the dangers of extrapolation without independent, supporting data. The question of the origin of the genetic code is a historical one. Conjuring molecular evolutionary fantasias not supported by historical evidence is exactly that -- an exercise in creative imagination, but not particularly a rigorous attempt at answering the question of how the genetic code, as an entity in biological history, actually emerged.
No investigation of a bewildering scientific mystery finds discovery leading toward intelligent agency. What we learn is always in the direction of the natural.
Agency can be perfectly, utterly natural. I'm hardly proposing otherwise.
This is one of the things science gradually learned in the centuries after the Middle Ages, that divine providence (or intelligent agent in modern ID lingo) never turns out to be the answer. It is never argued in modern science, "We've tried and tried to find an answer for this, but we can't find one, so one has to consider a power far greater than ourselves."
There's nothing wrong with considering a "power greater than ourselves." That's an intrinsically anthropocentric ideology; the problem becomes when that "power" is presumed to be some sort of masculine god creature thing.
Actually, engineering life doesn't require technology significantly more advanced than our own. It only requires a few decades of advance in molecular nanotechnology and manufacturing.
IDists will argue, "No no, not a 'power far greater than ourselves,' just an intelligent agent. Intelligent, like we are, that's all." But it's hard to take them at their word - at heart they seek God, not aliens, for there's no answer for the infinite regression. If life here is the result of an intelligence, then where did that intelligence come from?
What makes you think that life on Earth represents the only possible combination of molecules that can be endowed with intelligence? We know, after all, that non-biological systems can possess intelligence (i.e., AI systems, which are becoming increasingly "smarter").
All that is required for evolution to kick-start on a planetary (or other) surface is self-replication with errors. And there are plenty of possible self-replicating systems that could conceivably arise on another planet: systems which would not possess the properties that life on Earth has -- properties that have posed a problem for origin of life models.
Ultimately there had to have been a first intelligence, a god...
That's rather parochial -- even naive -- thinking. Gods and their ilk are hardly needed for non-genetic-code-based evolution to kick-start elsewhere in the universe.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
