The final question, to an essentially anti-theistic (ala anti-Genesis-1) Space Program, is whether opposing the average man's wish to 'contaminate' even the Moon with terrestrial biological material is not the right thing to do?
In other words, is the idea of Farmer to the Stars too a-metaphysical for atheist's wish to best prove that life evolved?
For, if such 'contamination' had been left to its own rightfully secular devices, then the Atheist Religion would be precluded its own most realistic means of establishing its own ideal of the Ultimate Description of the Cosmos and Matter.
The only way that the Atheist Religion otherwise can hope to persuade its fence-sitting skeptics that life evolved is to somehow have star-hoping sentient extraterrestrial aliens show up on Earth. Even if this means creating a hoax to that effect.
In the meantime:
According to John Walton (see reference and link below), Genesis 1 cannot, on any level, address material origins. This is because Walton takes for granted that the 'science' of material origins necessarily is that kind of 'science' according to which humans are objectively 'insignificant', 'puny' 'bundles of carbon cells' in a 'vast' lifeless 'universe'. (@ 35:45-36:34 and 38:38)
Walton, John (2014): 'Understanding Genesis 1-3 - John Walton and Joe Fleener'. Youtube, Laidlaw College: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kOflP3eLSI(Laidlaw College channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUSCQwlpu9Jx6nhabm6ZpZw)
Walton affirms that God materially created that universe and its vastness. So Walton allows that God actually, in some significant sense, intended the universe to be so vast and so lifeless.
So Walton's logic here allows that God meant, in some way, to make us feel increasingly insignificant the more we learn of how---according to secular presuppositions--life and cosmos came about. Walton would counter this allowance by his claim that Genesis 1 predates such 'science'. Therefore, Walton faces either:
(1) that God is inconsistent with Himself, or
(2) that Walton himself is inconsistent with himself.
Walton, of course, prefers simply a vaguely defined ideal comprise that renders God genuinely good in having (a) created a vast lifeless universe over eons, then (b) allowed life to evolve through cold predation over more eons, and (c) after humans had finally evolved into existence and to a certain level of intelligence,...
...God finally, in some unspecified manner, revealed Himself to only one local people among a world of humans.
Of course, this 'ideal' makes Biblical Theological History a joke. But that problem, likewise, would be 'resolved' by Walton by a further vague overall sense of an ideal compromise that renders God genuinely good for having materially created life in the way in which Walton claims that 'science knows' that it was created: that in face of which humans are 'insignificant' 'puny' 'bundles of carbon cells' 'on a vast planet in a vast universe.'
This is not so say that all of that which Walton uses to support his denial of the historicity of Genesis 1 is false. On the contrary, Walton appeals to a host of ideas only some of which are erroneous.
Moreover, the problem is a most inconvenient debate for both sides, in that some of the true ideas that Walton espouses are those that far too many of my fellow YEC's could not care less about for Genesis 1:1-15: life and the Earth.
But is humans' desire to take life to stars a stupid kind of fancy?
Or, instead, by God's design, are humans capable, in principle, of doing for other planets what God did for the Earth? In short, is Genesis 1 about nothing more for human productive capacities than what God did?