If you weren't so busy being indignant on behalf of a total crackpot, you might have noticed this:
"Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits."
The article author does not write off panspermia. It is not panspermia that is the issue. His issue with Wickramasinghe is not his support for panspermia, but that he makes claims that pretty much anything and everything is evidence of panspermia, even when it plainly isn't.
He addresses specific issues that raises very substantial doubts about the validity of this specific "research", and further points out that this quality is part for the course for both the journal it was published in and the researchers.
He acknowledges his ad hominem, but also points out that when we want to evaluate whether or not to believe in a claim, whether or not the source is reputable is in fact important unless we have the skill and inclination to accurately assess the claims made ourselves.
It is reasonable to be extra sceptical of claims made by someone with a history of making claims that turns out to be totally ridiculous and false, in the interest of not wasting time on every crackpot claim out there.
If this was a journal article, this would not have been acceptable - if we take the trouble of formally assessing the claims made, then we should do just that and leave the ad hominems out.
But this was not a journal article. And for good reason: Not many who would be likely to read the journal articles and have the skill to assess the claim would take these claims seriously in the first place. But a lot of people will have seen the news reports repeating the dubious claims made.
Frankly, your comment comes across like someone who has an axe to grind.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
You're probably right. And the article writer seems to mostly agree with you on this:
> Having said that, I do think there is life in space, or at least that’s the way to bet. We know there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and we know life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions on our newly-formed planet were right for it. So I’m confident that, statistically speaking, there is life on other planets, at the very least “primitive” life such as one-celled plants.
>
> It’s even possible life arose on Mars before it did on Earth and was carried here via meteorite. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s one with a lot of holes in it, the biggest being we have zero evidence of life on Mars. Getting it here is not that big a problem, but then having it live long and prosper is another issue altogether.
>
> So to me, panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it. There are a host of other problems with it as well, but I think the biggest black eye it has right now is the support it gets from both pseudoscience and sloppy science.
He is skeptical, but does not rule it out. He does, however, rule out the specific claims made by Wickramasinghe in this instance based on actually evaluating the evidence presented.