fifth monarchy man: Would you say that any eventual finding about life on other planets would make Neo-Darwinism less likely?

Neo-Darwinism is a rather old theory, but I suppose you mean the modern Theory of Evolution. Life, if discovered, would almost certainly have evolved over time, and would probably add considerably to abiogenetic theory. The discovery of life on other planets would cause a reevaluation of many scientific theories. That's what happens.

There is a significant caveat to overcome before
reaching conclusions about the Great Filter. From Craig Venter (the genome guy):

"We exchange roughly a hundred kilograms of material annually with Mars."

I didn't know we had that much exchange of material with Mars. On top of that, we've probably contaminated Mars with microbes that hitchhiked on Russian and American spacecraft. If our space program survives, I expect we will eventually find life over there. I also expect that life to be DNA-based.

Indeed it will be fascinating, but why do you think Darwinists will make such a claim?

Would you say that any eventual finding about life on other planets would make Neo-Darwinism less likely?

Very good points indeed. It's good fun to make up creative just-so stories, isn't it? I don't mean this in a negative way at all, it really is fun to imagine such scenarios.

I don't take it as negative. Who knows what we're going to find out in space? The unknown is an essential aspect of life. We'll get answers, one way or the other.

Fmm,

Indeed. The possibilities are staggering, and interesting - as limited as human design. (Which is to say, few limits at all.)

It all depends on the way that the designer planted life. Denton thinks that there is something like a natural law that generates life any time the conditions are right. So if microbial life is common it would be evidence for his kind of ID.

Perhaps. But only if Denton would be more specific about the "right conditions". Otherwise it's too easy to say that the conditions must have been right, or there wouldn't have been life.

Whatever we find it will be fascinating stuff from an ID perspective and Darwinists will claim it was predicted all along.

Indeed it will be fascinating, but why do you think Darwinists will make such a claim?

But again, how do we know it won't evolve into something interesting - especially once humans arrive there? Maybe they're there for us to study, or be used as a tool. Maybe part of the front loading was the conditions of earth.

Very good points indeed. It's good fun to make up creative just-so stories, isn't it? I don't mean this in a negative way at all, it really is fun to imagine such scenarios.

So why bother planting life on mars if it was clear (as it must have been to the Designer) that it had no chance to evolve into something more interesting?

It all depends on the way that the designer planted life. Denton thinks that there is something like a natural law that generates life any time the conditions are right. So if microbial life is common it would be evidence for his kind of ID.
If on the other hand if alien microbial life is completely different from life on earth, not based on carbon or no DNA for example Denton's law would seem less probable IMHO.

Whatever we find it will be fascinating stuff from an ID perspective and Darwinists will claim it was predicted all along.

Peace

Excuse me, but I thought bringing up a designer is not entirely off topic on an ID blog.

I'm not telling you off. I'm just expressing some surprise. I don't think Bostrom touches on a designer in the article. Now, his simulation theory..

Yeah, but remember that earth is a very privileged planet. It was clear from the start that earth - unlike mars - had the right conditions for intelligent life to evolve. So why bother planting life on mars if it was clear (as it must have been to the Designer) that it had no chance to evolve into something more interesting? I suppose one answer might be that if life on earth were destroyed by some freak accident (unforeseen by the Designer), mars might serve as a secondary seeder of life on earth.

Well, keep in mind that I'm friendly to ID, but I'm in my own category in all likelihood. So I don't see a designer hedging bets for a freak accident. I don't see any surprises from a designer perspective. I don't even rule out abiogenesis; to me, that's one more tool a designer would use.

But again, how do we know it won't evolve into something interesting - especially once humans arrive there? Maybe they're there for us to study, or be used as a tool. Maybe part of the front loading was the conditions of earth. I can think of a lot of uses, none of which demand complex life right now. (And again, time's another consideration. If we were sentient observers at the right point in earth history, we could have mounted an argument of 'No life here, certainly no intelligent life, so what's the point?' Enough time passed to answer that objection.)

Designer? I thought we were talking about Bostrom's filters and the probability of intelligent life.

Excuse me, but I thought bringing up a designer is not entirely off topic on an ID blog.

you could ask the same question if you dial it back enough years on earth. "Nothing here but microbes. If some designer wanted intelligent life, why isn't there any on earth?"

Yeah, but remember that earth is a very privileged planet. It was clear from the start that earth - unlike mars - had the right conditions for intelligent life to evolve. So why bother planting life on mars if it was clear (as it must have been to the Designer) that it had no chance to evolve into something more interesting? I suppose one answer might be that if life on earth were destroyed by some freak accident (unforeseen by the Designer), mars might serve as a secondary seeder of life on earth.

But if there is microbial life on other planets, and unrelated to life on earth (it could have dispersed from earth after all), wouldn't that shed a little doubt on the idea that life was designed and front-loaded to evolve into complex life? Why would the Designer plant the seeds of life on Mars if there was no chance for it to evolve into intelligent life? Assuming of course that the Designer knew all too well that conditions on Mars would prohibit such evolution.

Designer? I thought we were talking about Bostrom's filters and the probability of intelligent life.

But even going that route - you could ask the same question if you dial it back enough years on earth. "Nothing here but microbes. If some designer wanted intelligent life, why isn't there any on earth?" Or if complex life was all over the place, "Well, how special can it be if it's common?" If they were very similar, why did the designer bother recreating the same damn thing? If they were very different, why did the designer keep changing the plans?

I don't think any of the given situations make design more/less likely. It just shuffles the questions that will likely be asked. If situation X, why? If situation Y, why?