Asteroids such as Ryugu seeded earth

I wonder, how does this fit Biologos theology?

Nobody here knows what ‘Biologos Theology’ is … Likely no such thing exists. And if it did, asking how it is affected by various things wouldn’t be nearly as interesting a question as asking how it affects Christian theology generally.

And as for that, it’s interesting to think how prolific life might be through a potentially fertile universe, and to wonder if there are possibilities in that to discover how God caused life to arise here! I’m personally a lot more excited by the notion of a fertile universe rather than a sterile one.


As mentioned, there is no such thing as Biologos theology since Biologos is an organization with people attached to it in the real world from all kids of denominations. Even in these forums the moderators have different theological positions on things and the posters even wider so. About the only thing really in common is the willingness to reject YECism in favor of evolution playing a role in it and that the earth is several billion years old. Even then you can’t get to specific since for example I reject all notions of intelligent design and I don’t think God had a role in guiding life or a love seeded bulbous universe and so on. While others here believe God guided evolution in some way. Either directly or by creating laws that would result in life and so on.

As for the typical member here other than the various fundamentalists who show up I can’t imagine this is a new concept. Hypothesis , not theories, of earth seeded by extraterrestrial objects is not new. It probably changes nothing faith wise for most here. It has zero impact on my faith personally.


I should imagine it has huge implications…what about the two creation accounts in Genesis?

Is God now an asteroid or does he create by placing elementary life on an asteroid and throwing it randomly or directly at a new planet in the universe hoping that planet might have the correct position, environment…the right conditions for life?

This is most dedinately a challenging theological question…to claim biologos has no theology is ridiculous…thats a question that cannot be ignored by any Christian who studies the bible…we seek to understand our existence, our future…the bible reveals a creator God does it not ?

I think that the possibility of finding life on an asteroid is a topic requiring theological explanation…with biblical support. Its clear in Genesis that the bible says “He created the sun, moon and stars also” this was done in addition to creating the earth.

So again, is God an asteroid or, did he place seeds of life on an asteroid and randomly throw it through space, not at earth specifically as id suggest that violates the laws of science in that such an act would constitute creation being a miracle, hoping something would happen?

If creation is a miracle, explain then why that miracle cannot be man formed exactly as Genesis chapter 1 “Let Us make man in Our own image” and which the rest of the bible references over and over again?

Genesis describes a purposeful and personal creation…i do not think one can intellectually conclude an asteroid being hurled in a random direction in the universe fufills that theology.

So I’m not a concordist but an accommodationist and I recognize genesis 1&2 as two separate creation myths seamed together by later biblical editors.

1 Like

Crazy!! I don’t know about “Biologos theology” but the idea expressed or hinted at in this article reminded me (vaguely maybe) of a film made a decade or more back where a famous atheist suggested that, to explain the evidence of intelligent life on earth, one need only propose that such life was seeded by a dying universe — other than our own.

This article discusses extraterrestrial seeding from a “distant asteroid” — which might give various theorists opportunity to imagine great things — that is, above and beyond what is known.

And Ok…I admit to not believing in multiple universes out there…or dying universes seeding the next generation with intelligence, etc. But – interesting article!


So this organisations founder Francis Collins does not have a theology and that his theology doesnt form a integral part of the fundamentals of Biologos?

the systematic study of the divine and religion – of Christianity and Christian belief and practice.[1] It concentrates primarily upon the texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument. Theologians may undertake the study of Christian theology for a variety of reasons, such as in order to:

** help them better understand Christian tenets[2]*
** make comparisons between Christianity and other traditions[3]*
** defend Christianity against objections and criticism*
** facilitate reforms in the Christian church[4]*
** assist in the propagation of Christianity[5]*
** draw on the resources of the Christian tradition to address some present situation or perceived need[6]*
** education in Christian philosophy, especially in Neoplatonic philosophy*

Well sure … individuals like Collins have theologies just like you and I and everyone else does too if they’re old enough to have given it some thought. But Collins wasn’t (so far as I would know) heavy-handed about insisting that this organization and everyone involved with it must be of one theology. Maybe paid staff members have to sign some sort of basic faith statement, but if so, I’ll bet it would be pretty basic and general, maybe with the only detail being that they aren’t anti-science and specifically not anti-evolution. But beyond that I would be very surprised to learn that he wants everyone to think just like he does, adhering to the same traditions and denominational ties. It just wouldn’t fit what I’ve seen of this organization’s modus operandi. So if you want to think of all that in itself as being some sort of libertarian ‘theology’ - but one that insists on truth and honesty, then so be it. Maybe the day has arrived when an insistence on truth and honesty does sadly distinguish some theologies from others, but my guess is that you would hotly contest that and would refuse to think that Biologos should be considered in anyway unique for insisting on that. And Biologos doesn’t put itself forward as any kind of new theology that hasn’t already been commonly available to everyone up and down the ages. Science always has specific new things to be thinking about, of course. But there is nothing new under the sun about attending observantly and thoughtfully to creation and what it has to teach us.


This is just an astronomical and chemical process and as such doesn’t have much theological impact. Asteroids and comets certainly contain a variety of chemicals that would be useful for building life, and plenty of them have hit the earth over time. Both the patterns of craters observed on older surfaces in the solar system and current models of planet formation indicate that the number of collisions would have been much higher early in the solar system’s existence, and decreasing later to the point of being relatively rare as today.

A complication is the fact that the earth itself would also have a bunch of those chemicals from its formation. Some would have been destroyed in the planet-melting collision with Theia, but how much was or wasn’t present on the earth apart from impactors is hard to say exactly. The advantage of checking out asteroids and comets for these chemicals today is that they don’t have a long history of biological processes changing what chemicals are present.

But this does not make God an asteroid or reduce Him to trying to hit a planet properly with the right ingredients. If God is in control of ordinary physical processes, as the Bible affirms, then He can be certain that the right stuff will be in the right place, by whatever method He wants.

The theological position of BioLogos is that we should seek harmony between science and faith, rather than trying to impose one on the other. This involves several other considerations such as the importance of honesty, the meaningfulness of studying creation (because God made it, it behaves in orderly ways; it is worthwhile to find practical applications that will help our neighbors, etc.) But the fact that we find things working one way versus another as we do our scientific study does not have much theological impact. “It looks like God worked this in that way. Cool!” applies whether the scientific process followed one path versus another, or whether the particular task was achieved using scientific patterns or not.


Do you realize how stupid this sounds?

No one has found life on an asteroid nor does anyone expect to. What has been found are traces of some amino acids. Such organic compounds have been known to exist in interstellar clouds, so that there were some found on an asteroid isn’t that big a deal.

Genesis doesn’t say how it happened, only that God did it.

1 Like

That’s some serious science fiction!

Except it isn’t a distant one at all, it’s a near-earth asteroid.

Well, yeah…it was “near earth” when it hit!!

The atheist in question was/is Richard Dawkins…I suppose he thinks it a smart thought. At least, of course, it puts off any thought of a Creative Being…instead we have endless recycling of universes…

I think I would have read about it if Ryugu had collided with us.

That’s like saying that the existence of a paint brush means there’s no painter, or the existence of a cake means there’s no baker.

all good points Marvin.

It seems to me that perhaps ive given the impression that all Christians must have the same doctrine. Theology and doctrine are different are they not?

Isnt theology kinda like the framework by which we study and develop doctrine? Wouldnt that be more universal? This is probably my fault in not ensuring i dont inadvertainly conflate the two in this environment as i would be misleading in doing that.

I agree with most of what you said St Roymond…i am suspicious of your last statement but generally, yes i agree with your response.

However, it still presents a problem for Christians and needs answering does it not? How do Christians answer the secularists who would use this to claim there is no God, we came from asteroids?

BTW i ask this becauser i wonder if Biologos is better able to answer it than my world view?

Yes – and it all depends on where the foundation is put. Every time the foundation has been selected on the basis of how to make a logical argument the church has gotten into trouble; the foundation is and ever shall be Jesus and the Incarnation.

Im trying to understand why your doctrine is so heavily focused on the incarnation?

Tell me something…what is the purpose of Christs incarnation? Ultimately, for what reason?

It only takes a little thought: God made a universe where the basic laws and constants result in what we cal the Periodic Table, and the natures of the elements (including the relative amounts) result in chemicals that turn out to be the building blocks of life, such that these chemicals occur in abundance all across the universe in every galaxy – indeed given the laws and constants it is impossible for a galaxy to exist where these do not eventually occur! And so in every galaxy where third-generation stars have formed the pieces for making life are found in every cloud from which those stars formed, and thus when a planet massive enough to hold an atmosphere for a few eons forms at the right distance from a star for water to exist in all three phases on its surface, tilted just right to provide seasons, and with a moon large enough to slosh oceans back and forth in what we call tides, all the building blocks for life will be present and will freely mix. Having a molten core and thus a magnetic field helps, as does the resultant volcanism, of course since it spreads a mix of elements across the surface, and enough water to make the aforementioned oceans, but when all this happens then whatever trigger is necessary will result in what is expressed in Genesis by the words, “Bring forth!”

Tell them they’re making a category error. I like John Lennox’ illustration of this: if he puts fifty dollars into the drawer in his motel room in Boston and comes back to find only twenty dollars, he does not conclude that the laws of arithmetic were broken, he concludes that the laws of the state of Masschussetts were! In other words, the atheists are trying to pretend that physical laws can exclude personal action. My own favorite illustration, as the family member who got roped into baking for family holidays, is that secularists are claiming that the existence of an apple pie on the table for Christmas means that there was no baker in the kitchen!

Honestly, in my experience the YEC response is almost certain to drive people away, whereas the Biologos version will make them sit up and think.

Indeed the ‘recipe’ above for a life-sustaining planet is part of what drove some of my fellow intelligent-design club members to conclude that there must be a Designer: the universe gives the appearance of something set up to result in life, specifically carbon-based life, because like a LEGO set with lots of pieces everything necessary for life is right at hand just from the unfolding of the basic laws and constants – often referred to as “fine-tuning”. And that is – as even Richard Dawkins once admitted – is awe-inspiring at the very least, since as Carl Sagan once observed it makes the occurrence of life seem inevitable.

I think of this every time I read the statement that the Spirit of God hovered/meditated over the “face of the deep”. I’ll borrow the words of one of those fellow students, a former atheist who in his search for somewhere that the Designer had attempted communicating with us His intelligent creatures compared it to the story of Goldilocks, that this particular lump of matter in a sea of chemicals and energy was “just right”, and all it needed was photons – which show up when God commanded light to be. He imagined – and I with him – that the Spirit was contemplating this particular part of “the deep”, seeing all the elements and the chemicals delivered as designed by the interstellar cloud that formed our solar system and anticipating the life to come.

And yes, that’s treating the text a bit more literally than its literary genre might require, but it doesn’t at all surprise me that when the person God chose say down to write a Creation story to challenge all the ones that had gotten it wrong then more truth than he was aware of shone through.

Because the Incarnation is the solution to all the problems of the Old Testament, from separation from God to the Nephilim to reclaiming all the nations – it is the center of the entire story. Jesus in His earthly life was human as we should have been and in His Resurrection is what we were always supposed to be. He is the fulfillment of every covenant and their foundation, the first true human, the key to re-opening Eden and picking up where things left off when the Serpent/Nachash tipped things off the rails.

Everything else in the scriptures is secondary to “Repent and believe”, and that rests on Jesus. Everything in all the texts is about Him, as He showed the two disciples on the way to Emmaus; as Paul put it, He is all in all, all things are for Him.

The scriptures are stories about YHWH-Elohim and His desire for a family made of matter, and Jesus is the pinacle of that because as the Firstborn/Way-Opener He shaped it all and forged a path where we will get shaped again into His likeness.

1 Like