Marconomic analysis of Geogenesis

One of the aspects of science that led me to Marcomony was the historical sciences of origin - ie. Evolution and abiogenesis. To work backwards as to why I favoured panspermia over geogenesis I studied the literature, and to put it in terms of utility, neither could currently demonstrate primary utility, so  parsimony was invoked explicitly, with various justifications based on self-consistency and other consistency. 

The argument can be made that either can be considered the most parsimonious, and in that general situation you get two different camps of "scientists", which I internally refer to as the "NASA block" and the "Wickramasinghe block" because it is how it has worked out. The whole narrative has diverged with these two blocks, and the divergence in how exobiological evidence is interpreted has completely diverged the conclusions from data that is agreed upon as untampered between the two blocks. There is, however, mutual suspicion regarding the massaging of exobiological data to maximise their case. The NASA block is considered the one worthy of the protection from the benefit of doubt, and as a narrative is more "complete" because it explains however imperfectly, a sequence that replaces devine intervention for the origin of life on Earth and/or the universe. Weak panspermia leaves the question of origins uncertain, or a question we should be actively researching, while strong panspermia avers that life had to always be there, with a concept related to entropy that life can only go from the more complex to more simple. Thus, the perceived wisdom that evolutionary steps forward had to come from genes already existent in the universe, delivered to Earth. 

A track back to primary utility would appear to favour (weak) panspermia, because the removal of the burden of proof has been disproportionately done for the NASA block, skewing conclusions in their favour when the evidence mainly leads the other way. Primary utility would note that panspermia predicts new facts more reliably. The detection of O2 gassing from comets is an example, but certainly not an isolated one, where expectations are met with the assumption of active life on comets, while the opposite assumption keeps throwing surprises.

Even the dichotomy between geogenesis and (strong) panspermia is a false one. A scientist once remarked that it was false to think that the only alternative naturalistic explanation of a finely balanced universe is infinitely parallel universes. There are myriad possibilities, and primary utility is going to struggle to track back that far, hence the explicit call to parsimony invoking God (or multiple universes). Other naturalistic options to abiogenesis exist in the same way, but these will be visited in another chapter.