Sparked by a May post and comments on Hells Handmaiden’s always-interesting blog.<\/a> Hell’s Handmaiden was reasonably challenging the absurdity of Denyse O’Leary’s claim that Francis Crick (one of the people who discovered the double helix structure of DNA, do keep up) would not get tenure today because he propounded the theory that human life was seeded by aliens. This post brought out a pretty incensed series of anti-PC comments from one Wakefield Tolbert. (I admit to being impressed at the Pythonesque surname, fitting so well with my mental picture of the commenter.) <\/p>\n I googled for evidence, with a half-thought out idea that the alien seeding idea was more associated with Fred Hoyle – a former Royal Astromer (thereby giving the lie to the “no honours for eccentric scientists” idea) – and Chandra Wickramasinghe.<\/p>\n Creation Web<\/a> seems pretty clear that Crick is the enemy:<\/p>\n Long before he ever discovered DNA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s structure, he held strong atheistic views. The news article even reported that Crick\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s distaste for \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcreligion\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 was one of the prime motives that led to his discovery, and also said, \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcThe antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122<\/p><\/blockquote>\n They then attack him for suggesting at one point that life is seeded through the universe.<\/p>\n Cross-currents <\/a> go further in that they try to claim Crick for a slightly misguided one of their own:<\/p>\n What he proposed is, of course, Intelligent Design without a Divine designer\u00e2\u20ac\u201dessentially putting off the question of Who or what (be that a Designer or spontaneous process) created life structures able to develop the space-travelling aliens….There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s certainly a lot more evidence for the Hand of G-d than there is for visiting space aliens\u00e2\u20ac\u201dbut none other than Sir Francis Crick was willing to grab for the latter in order to avoid the former.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, no. There isn’t much evidence for either as far as I can see. <\/p>\n Except that Panspermia itself doesn’t exactly require a belief in visiting space ships. It seems a perfectly rational hypothesis as defined by Answers. com<\/p>\n The theory that microorganisms or biochemical compounds from outer space are responsible for originating life on Earth and possibly in other parts of the universe where suitable atmospheric conditions exist.<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are some fundamental issues of logic here. <\/p>\n Firstly, Crick was indulging in scientific speculation, as the discoverers of the double helix did. They had to test that theory and it proved to fit the observations. If they had found out that DNA molecule was connected in the shape of a teapot or a Mobius strip, they’d have changed their views. Crick did in fact come to modify his views on Directed Panspermia.<\/a> <\/p>\n Secondly, the reliable authority fallacy is rearing its head again. Crick was successful in one area of thought, ergo, everything he says must be equally respected. I bet Francis Crick was probably not a good breakdancer. That is not to say that he couldn’t try a few fancy moves, if he so chose. However, being part of the team that discovered the structure of DNA would not, in itself, reflect on his skill as a break-dancer. He wouldn’t win an MTV B-boy competition just on the basis that he’d published a Nobel-prize-winning paper on molecular structure.<\/p>\n So, why do ID-proponents care about Crick’s speculations on the origins of life? Because they get a bit miffed that any respected scientist (read – an Authority) is an atheist. <\/p>\n Any potential Authority is going to get dragged in to support their arguments – from Einstein (because he spoke using the odd spiritual metaphor) to Chuck Norris (because he was in a film with Bruce Lee once.) So Crick is no exception. Try to get him on-board somehow. <\/p>\n