What are the problems with the idea that life on Earth (including human life) was created by extraterrestrials?

To many of us - the dichotomy over a creator 'god' vs. some other higher intelligence agency is not an issue but within the intelligent design and creationist circles it has caused significant discussion. In this item, Heiser challenges the ideas of excellent [biased? us?!?] researchers such as Lloyd Pye who have developed the idea of intervention or directed pan-spermia. Heiser is a scholar of ancient texts - including Sumerian and has been the main critic of Sitchin's research.

This is a great question, but let's first of all make sure you understand that I don't embrace this idea. In fact, it has so many holes I'm not sure why anyone entertains it. Let's also make sure we're on the same page. I assume by this question that a distinction is being made between the alleged ETs who allegedly created life on earth and the Supreme Creator (God). If not--that is, if the claim is that ETs created the universe as well, then the one making such a statement is tapped by the infinite regress conundrum: "Who created the ETs, then?" The thing created (regardless of what it can in turn create) cannot create itself before it was created. Its own origin requires something or someone outside itself to bring about its own origin.

Moving past this issue, we proceed on the following assumptions:

1) the alleged ET "designers" or creators of life on earth, including human life, are not the same as the ultimate Creator. This suggests that someone who wants to say ETs created humanity may also affirm the existence of a Creator God.

2) The question by definition assume INTELLIGENT design, not random undirected appearance of life by naturalistic processes. That is, suggesting ETs put us here requires intent or intelligence, not randomness.

The Immediate Answer

My short answer to the question is that the presumed defense of this idea is composed entirely of an elegant string of non-sequiturs. My reason for saying this proceeds as follows:

1) There's no evidence for intelligent ET life, so the question is moot.

2) Even if there was evidence for intelligent ET life . . .

Where is the evidence that they created us? Some might argue:

1. "Well, they are vastly intelligent." My response is "So what." We are vastly more intelligent than microbes or worms or dogs--did we create them? Superior intelligence is not evidence of creative activity.

2. "Well, they're genetically similar to us." My response is, "So what?" Our DNA is quite similar to worms, pigs, and apes--did we create them?

3. "Well, their technology is way ahead of ours." My response is, "So what?" Our technology is superior to that of dogs, cats, and any other member of the animal kingdom--did we create them?

3) Supposing Richard C. Hoagland's work on Mars anomalies proves his contention that there was an ET race on Mars . . .

How would evidence of that civilization (a) prove they created us, and (b) overcome the non-sequiturs above? That civilization could have existed and died out before we were created, or it could have came to exist after we were created. How would we know, and how would this case be proven?

The "OK, I'll play along" Answer

I'll play along and suppose that ETs did create us. (But recall that I do not believe the Bible says or suggests this--and if you're wondering about Gen 1:26, click here).

I could say that it is possible possible that ETs could have created life on earth, including us, but I would add that it would only be possible if they had God's direct help--so why bother with the idea.

Why would I say that?

Well, it's pretty simple. Someone who wants ETs to have created life on earth and human life must explain how it is possible for "non-divine" creatures to (a) know about the scientifically demonstrable fine-tuning of our solar system and universe that enable earth to support life as we know it, and (b) to have anticipated the gradual development of these processes as time went on--as the organisms of life forms they planted evolved within our fine-tuned biosphere. Dr. Hugh Ross has combed all the peer-reviewed journals in astronomy, physics, and biochemistry and culled a list of 322 parameters that must ALL, IN TANDEM, be operating for life as we know it to exist on this planet. Even if you don't like Ross's position, the parameters aren't going away because you don't like him. (Click here for some scientists who embrace Intelligent Design by a Creator God).

My question is, again, How could ETs have either arranged all these parameters or been aware of them so they could precisely engineer life forms that would not only survive, but evolve into the plethora of viable forms of life we know today (and the odds get worse if you have them creating multiple species). How could they foresee all the changes and interworking parameters throughout our galaxy that come together in the above parameters? This requires omniscience, but those who hold this idea don't want that, since we need a God for that. So how could non-omniscient beings pull this off? You have four options:

1) They guessed - not only is that silly and self-serving, but WHERE'S THE INTELLIGENCE? we're talking about intelligent design here, right?

2) They didn't care - they just threw out whatever seemed workable in the petrie dish and it just worked somehow. I repeat, WHERE'S THE INTELLIGENCE? If we want random chance, we go to Darwin, not unintelligent intelligent designers.

3) They copied their own biology. This one is fun. It actually doesn't answer the omniscience requirement, but I'll keep playing. I need to know the following: How would they know to do that? How would they know their own biology could withstand the forces of the cosmos that had and would converge to create the above parameters for life before those things had come together? How would they know unless they had tested these possibilities - and when the probability of having life that meets the 322 parameters above is 10^-388, that kind of testing not only requires omniscience, but eternality and a good measure of omnipotence. And if one tries to avoid the developmental processes of our universe, solar system, and evolution of life on earth by saying "well, the ETs just put mature species on earth and so they didn't have to calculate for all that time," then why not just go with God?

4) God gave them the information they needed. This is the best answer, but it brings up a salient question: Why bother with all this? The whole enterprise of trying to remove a Creator God and replace Him with ETs only succeeds at making a difficult question even more problematic and offers NO explanatory power over the intelligent Creator hypothesis. And this brings us to the real question:

Why do people want to replace God with ETs anyway?

Frankly, the only things I see that is "gained" by this retreat to ET designers are that one gets to invent one's own mythology or faith as he or she goes on, and avoids any spiritual accountability to a truly supreme Being. (That would be called pride). If we admit to the God of the Bible, then some of that biblical baggage - morality, ethics, the idea that there are absolute truths - has to come along. But are those things bad? Only if you want the universe to revolve around yourself. Maybe you've had a bad experience with organized religion. Join the club. I agree with you that a good amount of it is inept, commercialized, and frankly corrupt. If you are opposed to those things, then you're already on God's side. He's fed up with it, too (and far more patient than I would be with it). Your life has more meaning than to expend it on endless loops and non-sequiturs.