Creationism: The Origin of Life Debate
What is life – -a rhetorical philosophical question? Although there is a general understanding of whether something is alive or dead, things become fuzzy when you attempt to put complete and sufficient conditions to encompass the realm of life. Scientist attempt to achieve causality in research, therefore they need to control for spuriousness. As a result, scientists try to define specific conditions leading up to the effect they seek to replicate (i.e.- life). Trying to identify the specific conditions necessary for life, a problem arises. Life can have many forms, not just our organic understanding of it. In addition, there can be forms of life of which we yet to know. When we speak of the emergence of life, do we speak of complex life forms, or that of a single cell? Moreover, because we have yet to find proof of inorganic life, does that mean that somewhere in the universe it doesn’t exist? Scientists often lack true philosophical reflection in understanding the sociology of science. In the research process, scientists often skip over the level of abstraction when conceptualizing and then applying operational definitions to their research. Therefore, science needs to emphasize philosophical abstraction in addition to empirical evidence as tenets in the discourse of research.
Societal ideologies impact the fields of research in science (moreover, they impact all disciplines-but this research will focus on it’s role in scientific discourse). Science is a discipline inherently shaped by empirical evidence and facts. The shift from philosophical understandings of science to natural ones, occurred in Greece during the seventh and sixth century B.C.E (Fry,2005: 10). This shift demonstrates that shifts in ideologies experienced throughout society impact the forms of inquiry utilized by scientists. Consequently, society’s aim to understand experiences and observations of the natural world through natural causes lead philosophical thinkers to reconceptualize theories of life. Examining our historical discourse, multiple examples can be identified of how ideologies have shaped our understanding of the world in different ways. Investigating ideological shifts, it will become apparent how theories of life, and the research to support it, has changed along these lines to represent the beliefs dominating society. Sociology, as a discipline within itself, has attempted to understand science as an institutional discipline. Sociology seeks to shed light on the connection between the flow of information within science and what impacts the ongoing research within the field of science. Moreover, understanding how ideologies influence our understanding of what constitutes life, will undoubtedly reveal how research can be biased in it’s attempts to find the catalyst of life.
The lack of a complete definition of what life is makes it difficult to understand what is necessary to constitute it. What catalyzes the simplest form of life on Earth may no be the same formula on another planet. Consequently, scientist ‘s research the conditions in which they are familiar with, those on Earth. Understanding a part of the puzzle allows us to speculate and elaborate on other possibilities. To think that organic forms of life on Earth are the absolute formula for life in the universe is absurd. One of the problems that field of life research faces, is that there is no absolute, because we do not have sufficient information and knowledge regarding the creation of the universe, extraterrestrial life, and specifically the conditions on earth on which life emerged. Although we have enough information to make relatively accurate assumptions, they are not facts, they are informed assumptions.
The philosophical debate surrounding the origin of man, and life, is the most hotly debated question facing man. The exact development of our own existence is a mere theory, un-testable against constantly reliable empirical facts. This question has plagued man through time. From the inception of oral traditions, and the development of historical accounts of such inquiry, various theories explaining the phenomena of life have attempted to tackle this problem. With scientism dominating the narratives of social life, individuals seek empirical evidence for a process that took millions of years to bring the debate to this point. Examining the philosophical perspective of this debate can shed new light on evolving scientific theories of life. Together, by uniting the information gathered by these two distinct disciplines, will a beneficial discourse regarding the origin of man will be formed.
The answer to what constitutes life is a difficult and complex one. Although science tells us that life is comprised of the functions of our biological systems within our anatomy, philosophy urges one to contemplate the framework of our conceptualization of life. Is life associated with consciousness? Is life soley organic. Does the life formula have to include metabolism, complex organization, and self replication to be considered life. Is a half living system (i.e.- a virus) alive? A virus can reproduce, and replicate with a host, can it not. A more serious contemplation over such issues, instead of arguing with competing disciplines would aid useful depth to the origin debate.
From the onset of existence, myths attempted to answer the life paradoxes. Philosophy developed in attempts to critically reflect on such endeavors. Then scientism brought empirical evidence to the table when analytically examining such questions. All the fields of science: chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, astronomy, utilize empirical evidence to try to demystify the origin debate. The serious pursuit of man to answer the most troubling question of our history is one that may never be truly known. In order to establish a critical theory attempting to answer such a questions, it must actively attempt to draw from various disciplines in order to be successful in transforming discursive understandings. Looking from only one angel of the debate gives a biased view of reality. Maybe the problem with understanding the origin of life, is that across disciplines there is not an agreeable explanation of what constitutes life.
Utilizing discursive analysis, this research aims to identify how ideologies shape research, and in turn ideologies are reshaped by research. A particular ideology my cause a researcher to focus on research concurrent with their beliefs, and consequently, that same research can disprove the basis of that researcher’s ideology. When ideologies are disproved, ideological shifts occur. Furthermore, I will argue, the Scientific Revolution caused the discipline of science to step away from philosophical abstraction in research causing it to lose a certain degree of validity. The lack of a concrete agreeable definition of what life is across disciplines hinders origin research. Although science is based on empirical facts, empirical facts are useless if we do not know how to properly apply in theoretical abstraction.
Life, Science, and History: Ideologies Through Time
Science stumbles continuously to conceptualize the rise of living bodies from inanimate matter. Undoubtedly, it is a difficult and daunting task. Science has consistently brought out physical and biological empirical evidence to crystallize origin of life research as a purely scientific research field. Examining biological history and functions, along with the studies of chemistry, astronomy, and physics, science puts forth various theories on the development of life on earth. Moreover, they purport the development of our species to it’s current state as a field wholly scientific in inquiry, restricting the contribution of other disciplines as trivial. Examining the contributions of various researchers from the scientific fields we find that science dose have a critical value to offer to the origin paradox, but we also find critical shortfalls in the scientific attempt to define life.
Beginning in the classical period, teleological approaches of inquiry where popular. This was so because the dominant ideology of the time influenced the scientific discourse toward philosophical approaches of inquiry. The Greek philosophers of nature introduced theories of matter. Greek philosophers sought to explain life by the theories of spontaneous generations; utilizing various theories of the construction of matter and their general philosophy of nature the Greeks revolutionized the conception of life (Fry,2005: 10). The Sicilian philosopher Empedocles hypothesized that nature was composed of four basic elements: water, earth, fire, and air (these elements were termed the roots by Empedocles). Moreover, under the forces of love and strife these elements combined with each other repeatedly to creating living and non-living creatures. Empedocles dose not make distinctions between living and non-living organisms. As ideologies changed, a new form of inquiry arose. Greek atomists (such as Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus) developed materialistic theories to explain the development of the human soul and society. Teleological explanations began to be rejected as natural causes were sought for the relationships among natural human affairs. Leucippus pushed forward forcefully the theories of the atomists. The speculated small corporal bodies were the bases for the spontaneous generation of different organisms.
Greek mythology and culture offers us an interesting look at the first philosophical attempts to make sense of our existence. Theogony, a poem by Hesiod, brings together in a compilation of local Greek traditions concerning the gods in the form of a narrative to explain the creation of man and the universe. Moreover, derived form the ideas of Anaxagoras, a Greek philosopher; is a theory that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe. Consequently, life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating, this theory is known as Panspermia hypothesis. No compelling evidence is yet available to support or contradict it, so it remains a hypothesis rather than a theory. Exogenesis is another competing hypothesis, a counterpart of Panspermia. This hypothesis of Exogenesis states life originated elsewhere in the universe and was transferred to Earth, with no prediction about how widespread life is. Critics of such theories hold that space is a damaging environment for life. Being exposed to radiation, cosmic rays and stellar winds, would make the theories of Panspermia and Exogenesis unlikely. In addition, the theories derived from Greek Mythology are often cited of violating Ockham’s razor, but they offer an interesting discursive insight to the culture and beliefs of the times.
Furthermore, Plato purported a teleological perspective, representing matter and form in different ways. Aristotle’s theories are also of great philosophical and historical importance. His views became the predominant dogma for many, even years after his death. Viewing beings as organized wholes, Aristotle thought that the being worked toward conservation of itself. Furthermore, he could not fathom the complexity of humans being attributed to random movements of atoms. On the other hand, he believed that the soul, or organizing principle, was responsible for adding coherence to the human complexity. Also, Aristotle, unlike Plato, believed that the soul did not exist separate from the body. Theories of spontaneous generation were supported by the hypothesizes of the materialist, but the teleological theories of Plato and Aristotle gave rise to the ideological standard for this era. The soul, which Plato termed pneuma, he believed entered the soul at birth and departed at death (Fry,2005: 18). Consequently, in the early centuries C.E., the general belief was that the creative force of the penuma was additionally responsible for spontaneous generation. Such theories dominated Western cosmology and medieval thought until the Renaissance (Fry,2005: 11).
Authorities in the Catholic Church began to integrate theories of the penuma in to theological philosophy. St. Augustine, the father of Christian theology, utilized theories integrating the concept of penuma into spontaneous generation. According to Augustine “spontaneous generation is made possible by a divine decree, issued at the moment of creation and active forevermore, under whose power the generation of living creatures from the earth and various organic materials persists” (Fry,2005: 18). This doctrine prevailed until the beginning of the 13th century when another ideological shift occurred. This new dogma (partly based on Aristotle’s ideas) re-birthed by Thomas Aquinas, grounded Christian theology to the ideas of Greek philosopher Aristotle (Fry,2005: 19).
Through out time we have seen how theories have been synthesized into various disciplines impacting ideological beliefs of the times. Depending on the position of power of those advancing the beliefs, they can become dogma or discarded memories. Fantastic ideas about the generation of life are common, but the power one may hold may hinder the theory to become nothing more than a funny memory. For example, English naturalist of the 20th century Alexander Neckham gave a detailed report of geese being generated from the resin of pine trees when under the influence of sea salt (Fry,2005: 20). Furthermore, it was also a widely held belief for centuries that mixing male sperm with female menstrual blood would spontaneously generate a little embryo. Imagination and deep held beliefs of spontaneous generation are the obvious cause of these theories. Although as absurd as we believe it now, this theory could well be entertained now if those with the scientific knowledge of reproduction keep this information private, and discourse was shaped otherwise by those within positions of power.
Conceptual changes are crucial to ideological shifts. For example, spontaneous generation would have not lost notoriety if conceptual changes in understanding the emergence of life did not occur. Rene Decartes, although a proponent of spontaneous generation, denied this life driving force perpetuated by the medieval Scholastics (Fry,2005: 21). He moved toward the naturalist approach, partly due to the Scientific Revolution. As we can see, there is ample evidence of ideologies impacting research in the field of life in discourse. Although there was a renewal in the “beliefs of spontaneous generation associated with changes in the mechanistic philosophy of nature at the beginning of the eighteenth century” this theories were short-lived (Fry,2005: 29).
Spontaneous generation faced the hurdle of philosophical and empirical conflicts. Traditional mechanism and new mechanism brought conflicting ideologies regarding the processes of spontaneous generation. Furthermore, a historical discursive analysis of science (particularly in France where the ideological debate against traditional mechanism and new mechanism raged) will reveal the role of extra scientific factors impacting the conceptual content of science (Fry,2005: 37). This debate is demonstrated two camps. One who doubted the objective “unbiased nature of science and who considered extra scientific influences to be strong enough to shape factual truths. And those who regarded science as an objective enterprise capable of determining factual truths about the world” immune to cultural and political influences (Fry,2005: 38). This is pertinent to the debate on ideological influence in science. Lousi Paster, who ultimately discredited spontaneous generation, sought to prove that science was unbiased and absolute source of true objective empirical knowledge by proving spontaneous generation. Ironically his research disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Furthermore, Pauster also delayed in publishing his early work’s controversial findings after the political climate in France had changed (Fry,2005: 47). Why? Well the attitude of spontaneous generation had become a measure of a persons political and religious intentions in France during the middle of the nineteenth century (Fry,2005: 47). Demonstrating the power ideologies have in steering scientific research.
The free flow of knowledge is crucial to science as a discipline. The sociology of science is concerned as to with how knowledge is disseminated and who controls it. As one can see with theories that were developed in the ancient world, the process of ideological attainment impact the research preferences of scientist. In instances were those with the greatest power believe that scientific knowledge to be more valuable kept away from the masses, it is not to far fetched to say that maybe a theory like spontaneous generation could still be dominant today if competing theoretical research had not been unveiled. It is not to say that there is a conspiracy controlling scientific knowledge, but with the increased commoditfication of society the field of science is not immune.
Oddly enough, Christianity itself was partly attributed to founding modern science (Draper, 2005: 273). It is no coincidence then that biases impact research. “All sorts if biases influence scientific research; scientific inferences are obviously not demonstrative; and what scientists take to be the facts often depends in part on the theories they hold” (Draper, 2005 273). Ideologies are a crucial role of the scientific endeavor for they create the theoretical framework from which research is derived. As science moves away from abstraction, it places to much emphasis on empirical facts, losing it’s philosophical essence. Modern science equates naturalism with scientific truth, but rejecting overlapping modes of thought that can help science as a discipline just because it does not coincide with the ideals of naturalism hinders scientific research.
Ideologies of the 20th century revolutionized the origin debate, as the Scientific Revolution pushed forward; it reshaped the understanding of intellectuals seeking to answer such questions. All theories where not valid unless empirical facts were presented along it’s side. Yet science has a crucial obstacle to overcome regarding the origin debate, how can science accurately know the conditions under which life arose if it happened millions of years before our time. Moreover, the lack of a clear definition of life through out discourse on life reveals a crucial obstacle that life research must overcome.
The Legacy of the Scientific Revolution – – Empirical Science: The Impartial Source for all Relevant Information on Life?
Darwinian theory was a crucial turning point in the origin of life debate. The theory of evolution assumed a common origin point from which organisms evolved. Therefore, evolutionary theory postulates that a single form, or a few original forms of organisms arose from which all the species evolved. Then the critical question arose, how did these original forms of life form on Earth (Fry,2005: 55)? With the rise of Darwinian theory, scientist and philosophers alike became even more uncertain regarding the relationship of matter and life. Scientist’s sought to find the empirical evidence necessary to illuminate the origin debate, and disprove ungrounded philosophical speculation to the truth of life, empirical concrete facts derived from scientific experiments. Now as a legitimate scientific question, origin of life research entered a new realm.
The first scientific research published in the 1920’s by Russian biochemist Alexander L. Oparin, and the second by English biochemist and geneticist J.B.S. Haldane sought to legitimize life theories as scientific. The publication of these two article are a crucial turning point for origin research. Their endeavors were the first truly scientific in nature, attempting to understand the origin of life. Both Oparin and Haldane’s research described processes of chemical evolution that might have led to synthesis of more complex organic structures (Fry,2005: 68). Oparin’s main goal was to discredit theories of panspermia.? Oparin wanted to show that the major characteristics of the cell could be explained by physical and chemical mechanisms. Essentially Oparin and Haldane suggested a bridge between inorganic matter and life (Fry,2005: 67). Oparin utilized collid chemistry to hypothesize the synthesis of inorganic matter to organic matter under center conditions, which were believed to be that of the primitive Earth. The Oparin-Haldanel hypothesizes was revolutionary because it set a new philosophical framework from which to undertake life research. Instead of attributing life to being vitalistic, where life and matter are distinctly different categories, and mechanistic, were living systems being life and matter; the hypothesis alleged that the passage between matter and life as continuous. Furthermore, living systems could be explained in terms of natural processes (Fry,2005: 79). This conceptual framework serves as the basis for subsequent research undertaken in this field.
Stanley L. Miller and Harlod C. Urey further revolutionized 20th century science with their collaboration in the attempt to test the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis (“stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors”) (Altman 2001). Conducted in 1953 at UC Berkley, it is the most world renown experiment on the origin of life. It established that many of the basic organic molecules that form the building blocks of modern life can be formed spontaneously. The critical flaw with this experiment is the reliance on “soup theory” as to the conditions on pre-historic earth. Geological evidence does not indicate that earth’s early environment provided a rich palate for chemical evolution. Although this experiment was revolutionary in it’s time, researchers currently are leaning toward new directions with more accurate estimates of earth’s pre-historic environmental conditions. The Miller-Urey experiments helped lead scientific inquiry towards a greater optimism, and solidify origin research as wholly scientific in nature.
The crucial question now faced by science was life the result of random low probability events, or did the first stages of life occur under non-random events (Fry,2005: 85). The Oparin- Haldane projects lead the life research to be divided into two camps, the protein supporters and nucleic acid supporters. Essentially these camps argue that one came before the other and served a crucial role in catalyzing life (Fry,2005: 87). It is difficult to know if metabolism came first, or self-replication did at the onset of the first life on Earth. Differing ideologies on the probability of events happening on the primitive Earth, lead scientists to lean one way or the other. But the general consensus points toward the anti chance perspective. Finding areas of convergence between these two camps demonstrates the true relevance that science offers origin research in empirical evidence.
The discovery of DNA was crucial in origin research. Darwinian theories of evolution could now be applied to the cell. Thus allowing for a new research to be undertaken in the origin field. Thus, evolution of through natural selection could now be conceptualized in populations of molecules (Fry,2005: 95). These breakthroughs lead viruses to be of particular interest because they represented the half living system. It is able to reproduce through self-replication, and dependent on a host (Fry,2005: 97). “Through the principle of natural selection brought about the evolution of genetic information, and hence the evolution of a living system from inanimate matter” (Fry,2005: 104). This was an interesting breakthrough for researchers attempting to replicate life in the lab from non-living molecules.
The current theory with the most notoriety is the RNA World theory, which is based or prebiotic. “The RNA world hypothesis” (a concept first introduced by Carl Woese) suggests that short RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed, and that would in turn then catalyze their own continuing replication” (Altman 2001). “Growing evidence supports the idea that the emergence of catalytic RNA was a crucial early step. How that RNA came into being remains unknown” (Orgel, 1994:30). If RNA preceded the proteins, the first self replicating system was composed of RNA. Walter Gilbert elaborated on current understandings of RNA to propose this as a plausible origin theory. The ability to store, replicate and transmit genetic information is the groundwork for the RNA world theory. RNA, since it can reproduce on it’s own with out need or proteins or DNA, could have been able to have sustained itself independent to life. The RNA world scenario is meant to resolve the chicken egg problem by hypothesizing that RNA precedes proteins, and RNA was capable of self-replication first.
On the other had, Clay theory has also given rise to significant scientific evidence to support the RNA World theory. What is clay theory? Simply, it is that the intermediate step between dormant matter and organic life might be provided by the self-replication of clay crystals in solution. Clay theory was first introduced by Dr. A. Graham Cairns-Smith. His research was later adopted by Dawkins who sought to integrate aspects of clay theory into his research. Consequently, Dawkins postulated that clay would facilitate the self replication of RNA molecules. Recently, new break throughs in geological studies are bringing Clay theory to the forefront of scientific inquiry in relation to RNA World theory. Finding of RNA molecules in ancient fossilized rocks in South Africa and Australia bring strong empirical evidence for further research on RNA World theory.
Other competing theories such as an approach attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research (IGR), theorizes a top down approach of understanding life origins. It involved engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes. Doing so it sought to find at what the time the most minimal conditions for life are reached, within in a cell’s anatomy (Venter 2005). Integrating an evolutionary approach, the IGR is one of the leading research institutes in the nation undertaking the origin endeavor, in addition to other scientific research.
Another theory is one that proposes interstellar, stellar, or extraterrestrial molecules came in contact with earths environment. Some form of meteor or comet brought the necessary complex molecules for life. Scientist have speculated from geological evidence that in earth’s early history, it was bombarded with comets and meteors. Thomas Gold theorizes life first developed not on the surface of the earth, but several kilometers below the surface.
Scientific ideology holds that the emergence of life is neither by chance nor intelligent design. Obviously, life has not followed a linear path. Confusions and setbacks in science itself have caused an increased understanding of the complexity of the subject and development of new methods of scientific research inquiry to tackle the research question.
Ideologies, and Bias Know No Boundaries
From the creation of oral tradition, we have a rich history of accounts and understandings of the beginning of life. The ancient Greeks attributed life to be created by the gods. Moreover, various teleological traditions established the creation of live by some divine force. Philosophers also grappled with this question. Aristotle in the 4th B.C.E. characterized organisms as purposeful organized wholes (Fry,2005: 181). He regarded the different forms of organisms to be determined by their organizing principle, thus determining their identity; and furthermore these organisms being eternal. Therefore, he did not deal with the difficult question of the origin of these forms. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, in the 18th century, believed in a circular self-reproducing character of living systems (Fry,2005: 181). He felt the organism was the cause and effect, manifested in the growth and reproduction. Kant was theorizing about the origin of biological organization, and the question still posed today in the debate “can we explain, in causal materialistic terms, the production of an organized whole from its parts, taking into account that in such a system parts and whole are reciprocally dependent?” (Kant 249). For Kant the emergence of life from inorganic matter seemed absurd, he viewed matter as lifeless, and postulated that organisms seem to function according to an internal plan or design. Kant and Aristotle bring forward to sides of the origin debate which have continued through out centuries of the debate, the external and internal theories of design. These two theoretical frameworks have been underlying groundwork for subsequent ideological contexts of research and inquiry developed through out time.
Religion, by far, has been an institution which has greatly contributed to the theories origin. Although Creationism is by no means a science, it is a perspective which inherently shapes ideological thought, therefore will be examined in the context of this research. Across the spectrum no one single creationist story is alike. Examining some of the most influential creation stories from various religions will demonstrate the power some of these theories have had through the century in establishing ideological frameworks. Today in date, Creationism has been the new fad perspective. Essentially the Creationist position asserts some greater power, or first mover, created the world and life as we know it. This divine force is often referred to as a God. So what is Creationism exactly, Lockergnome Encyclopedia states:
“The term creationism may be used in a wider sense to refer to the belief that the universe and life was created by a deity, or by one or more powerful and intelligent beings through supernatural, theistic, or mythological means (see demiurge). Creationism as such can be linked to theistic interpretations of nature. The idea could equally be applied by Deists, who believe that there was a God who originally created the universe, and that God then either ceased to actively interfere with its operation, or simply ceased to exist. Similarly, proponents of an alternative type of creationism might rely on a belief that the universe was created by many deities, in accordance with a polytheistic faith, or by Vishnu, the Titans of Greek mythology or any of the host of other such beings.”
Creationism has many facets and is not a homogenous theory. An examination of mainstream religions will add some insight into assessing Creationist ideologies. Creationist concepts stem from the book of Genesis, a central book to both Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, the Qur’an, the central holy text of Islam, has a creation story very similar to that of Genesis. Within Judaism, the majority of classical rabbis held that God created the world an estimated 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, the creation of Adam and Eve was the result of God’s power through clay. This view is based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. This is a view still widely held by many Orthodox Jews, but most other Conservatives and Reform Jews came to accept the theory of evolution. On the other hand, examining the religion of Islam, the deep belief in tradition has stifled the acceptance of evolutionary theory. “However, several liberal movements within Islam, which are generally partial to secular scientific thought, subscribe to evolution. Creationist and Intelligent Design theories are very popular among the Islamic because of it supports the traditional beliefs of their religion, which are derived from the Qur’an. Many Christian based religions also support Creationist theories of life origins instead of evolutionary views. An interesting point though, is the papal acceptance of evolutionary studies by the Roman Catholic church. Therefore, the argument for Creationism among religious institutions is one that is fragmented at best.
Creationists believe that making assumptions about the past is a fundamental mistake in scientific inquiry. Moreover, Creationist assert the scientific paradigm is to narrow minded when addressing the subject of creation of life. Although the Creationist view in relation to evolution is not a mutually dichotomous relationship, it could definitely be asserted that it is gaining increased prevalence among the spectrum of religious conservatives. Although Creationists are committing illogical reasoning for disregarding scientific evidence for the origins of life, there is some scientific evidence that can be evidence of intelligent design. Specifically the notion of irreducibly complex systems, and the time window for life to have emerged on Earth. Creationists criticize scientists to looking for only natural causes in the emergence of life. Scientists Walter Bradley and Charles Thaxton are key researchers playing devils advocate. As it seems that all naturalistic theories are bankrupt, and new paradigms for research must be devised, they argue that conclusion of intelligent design should be afford merit among scientific researchers. They base their conclusion on an intelligent agent (not necessarily God) on the analogical method. “They have learned by experience to associate a particular type of effect with a certain kind of cause, be it natural or an intelligent cause” (Fry,2005: 205). When we speak of intelligent design, we are speaking of another realm of the origin debate, different from creationist ideology. Intelligent design theories are defending their position, by distinguishing themselves form religion so as to gain academic acceptance, and worthiness. Witnessing evidence on Earth of intelligent design, such as artifacts created by humans, Bradley and Thaxton argue such facts support intelligent design theories.
On the other hand, the problem of understanding life is the problem of understanding consciousness. It is arguably the central issue in current conceptualizations about the mind. So what are the features of consciousness? But, by describing what theories try to address in explaining consciousness, we will see how varied our understanding of consciousness are. Introspection allows for us in the first person to be aware of our consciousness. Third person observation and interaction provide more basis for classifying our experiences of consciousness. But our understanding as humans of consciousness of other “living” creatures is subjective in nature; we as humans can never truly understand the consciousness experiences of other creatures. Explaining the status of consciousness we find the hurdle of the explanatory gap. Joseph Levine states our misunderstanding of how consciousness depends on our biological and non-consciousness substrate. This theory states our cognitive limits will hinder our understanding of the dynamics of consciousness. Our understanding of how consciousness is often over look in scientific inquiry, and may be a limiting factor in our understanding of life by holding us back to only biological dynamics. Furthermore, the value of consciousness may help shed light in understanding evolutionary theories if properly synthesized together. We are inclined to assume that an organism’s moral status is in some way influenced by it’s conscious states, therefore, it play’s a major role in many of the accounts of value that underlie moral theory. All these aspects of understanding of consciousness have lead to dynamic theories of consciousness. As science seeks to understand life from a naturalistic perspective this key puzzle piece is very often over looked. But moreover, the fact that science often ignores the phenomena of consciousness outside the physical realm denotes the failure of science to incorporate fundamental theories outside of science in attempts to broaden and rethink scientific inquiry.
Furthermore, scientific research has inherent issues in assessing the true environment of prehistoric Earth (as the Miller-Urey experiment), because we do not have conclusive evidence as to earth’s environment at the inception of the first living cell. From all these theories, some thing is missing. All theories postulate some dynamic event, which has yet to be identified, that sprang a reaction that lead to the first proto-cell. In addition, the developments of cells lead then towards metabolism, and life. Once life was sparked by some of the unknown event, evolution caused the development of humans. This infamous theory developed by Darwin in his research on the Galapagos Islands has become more controversial throughout history with the rise of conservative ideologies with religious institutions. Humans, it is believed, to have evolved from Ardipithecus ramidus (believed to exist 4.4 million years ago), the most privative hominid found in 1992. Current Homo sapiens are believed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically the work of Ulf Gyllensten has popularized the ‘recent African origin’ hypothesis. “This theory holds that Homo sapiens evolved in a single location in sub-Saharan Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago and emigrated relatively recently, replacing existing populations of archaic humans across the globe.” (Quintana-Murci et al, 437). Gyllensten’s research has confirmed that genetic divergence corresponds to the physical separations of populations. This supports recent Africa origin theory by demonstrating within the test group that greater genetic variability can be traced through migration routes of sub-Saharan Africa. This research is ground breaking because it attempts to understand the development of modern man, thus relating current humans to common ancestors. Now the greater question remains, how did Homo sapiens independently develop and displace other forms of archaic hominids. Surely, science will continue to fight the battle of empirical evidence to search for such answers. But here we find a critical contemplation point, when we speak of the emergence of life do we speak of modern man, or the first cell, or the first half living cell, or the first self replicating molecule?
Human communication, especially across social and cultural divides, is a very difficult matter (Gee, 2005: xi). Gee describes how discourse models shape our unconscious theories that help us make sense of texts and the world. Discourse has no discrete boundaries because people are always, in history, creating new discourses, changing old ones, and contesting and pushing the boundaries of discourses (Gee, 2005; 30).
Discursive analysis reveals interesting aspects of how socio-cultural aspects impact dialogue, and history. This dynamic social phenomena leads to the development of ideologies, that often can be biased. How so, well, every one who writes history, or does research has some inherent bias; and often they can pass it along in their research. Michel Foucault, developed an interesting and fascinating perspective on the understanding discourse. Foucault’s version of discourse is the most pervasive theoretical idea in the Archeology of Knowledge, the discourse of discourse (Foucault, 1972:205). The discourse term has a history as the object of study for a new kind of history, the history of ideas. Many disciplines, specifically Linguistics, have developed methodologies for analyzing discourse; but Foucault devotes much of the Archeology to refining and winnowing the usual sense of discourse into an object of analysis that is very strictly delimited. Michel Foucault’s emphasis has always been about the nature of power in society. In Archeology his prime concern is power’s relationship to the discursive formations in society that make knowledge possible. Power here is not the conventional power of institutions and leaders, but the “capillary” modes of power that controls individuals and their knowledge, the mechanisms by which power “reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives” (Foucault, 1980:30). Foucault’s theories afford researchers an starting point as with which to seriously contemplate before undertaking their research.
Foucault carries his insistence on discourse-in-itself down to the most basic unit of things said: the statement. Just as discourse is never taken as a partial sign of a greater, partially hidden historical truth, so individual statements are never taken as expressions of a psychology, nor even as vehicles for referential meanings and propositions. Therefore, discourse is the set of relations within which all of these other factors gain their conditions of possibility. This argument is responsible both for the immense success of Foucault’s method and for the most persistent criticisms of it. The idea that discourse can be described in and of itself, not as a sign of what is known but as a precondition for knowledge, opens up limitless possibilities for showing that what we think we know is actually contingent on how we talk about it (Foucault, 1972: 88). Consequently, applying this understanding to the realm of scientific research, we can conclude that what we know about the emergence of life is dependent on the steering of the research in the field, and the power of those within the hierarchy; leading to the development of discourse to that falls within a subset of theories to gain dominance. I do not contend that science abandon the naturalistic approach to the emergence of life, but redefine the contextual paradigm with which it encompasses to understand the natural world in a new unique way, outside of what discourse has shown us. Furthermore, Fry (1995) argues, that going to the “core- to the very right of existence” of the naturalistic research program in the origin of life, will only new breakthroughs be made by reassessing the cultural context of research (414).
Conclusion
Science was only able to undertake serious life research one a Darwinian evolutionary world view became the norm. Epitomizing how ideologies direct research, not only scientifically, but in other disciplines.” Many non empirical factors are involved in determining scientific positions and in the adoption of scientific theories leads to the notion of theoretical and philosophical decision or commitment” (Fry,2005: 283). Pope John Paul II stated it best:
“Science can purify religion error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. For the truth of the matter is that the Church and the scientific community will inevitably interact; their options do not include isolation” (Draper 2005: 272).
Discursive analysis of research history on the emergence of life, we see two critical factors: 1) the power level of the theory (who pushes, supports they theory publicly in society; 2) ideological shifts in society can either bring about greater research emphasizes on theories that are dominant while pushing competing theories to the side. Therefore, a competing theory must have public support by powerful individuals or institutions to bring about an ideological shift in research. Origin research is shaped by the ideological consensus of the times. What we have also seen, is there is no unique consensus on what constitutes life. Furthermore, when it comes to origin research, at what level of inquiry would certain characteristics be included to represent life. In examining how different research disciplines are driven by ideological paradigms, we see how the conceptualization of life undertakes many varying characteristics. Utilizing Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblance to understand the life issue, could shed light into this philosophical and empirical problem. Spark notes summarizes Wittgenstein’s Family resemblance theory as follows:
“The idea of family resemblance is Wittgenstein’s answer to the idea of fixity of meaning. We tend to think of words as labels that we can apply to things, ideas, mental states, and so on. This leads to the notion that a word like “understanding” must have one fixed meaning, which we might identify as some sort of mental state or process. When we use the word “understanding” in different contexts, we think that both uses of the word share something in common. In order to show the error in this way of thinking, Wittgenstein uses the metaphor of family resemblance. If we gather together five members of the same family, they probably look alike, although there is no distinctive feature that they all share in common. A brother and a sister might have the same dark eyes, while that sister and her father share a slightly turned-up nose. They have a group of shared features, some of which are more distinctly present in some members of the family, while some features are not present at all. Wittgenstein argues that the different uses of one word share the same family resemblance. There is no single defining characteristic of all uses of the word “understanding”; rather, these uses share a kind of family resemblance with one another.”
Applying Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance concept to origin research, it could be argued that origin research might gain a greater understanding of their research problem by looking for aspects of life, instead of all the commonly accepted characteristics of life. Therefore, life could be understood in terms of having certain characteristics, such as, self replication, metabolism, organic matter, genetic material, regeneration, and so on, but not having one of these characteristics does not mean that it couldn’t constitute life either; furthermore, an evolutionary perspective would support such a contention. Moreover, our understanding of life on Earth is limited to what we know as humans.
The discourse of science has been to concerned with identifying the specific complete conditions leading to life. Instead, scientific discourse should perpetuate competing theories of suitable varying conditions of life. Doing so will allow scientific discourse to emerge with a newness in conceptualization, offering opportunities to overcome the intellectual roadblock facing emergence research. When scientists seek to reproduce the pre-life conditions in the lab, and catalyze life, we seek to cause organic life. With the vast size of the universe, it is very well probable that other forms of life exist. Forms of life that could of catalyzed under very different conditions, yielding organisms that are just as complex but entirely different from our biological system. For all we know, life could have developed on other planets with organisms who produce methane and hydrogen sulfide as byproducts of their biological process (Fry,2005: 237). Attributes completely different from our understanding of life.
Any attempt to exhaustively define life futile. Life is a philosophical and empirical concept, and our ability to characterize it is conditioned by our specific experiences and current scientific knowledge (Fry,2005: 240). Furthermore, Kant makes a relevant elaboration on empirical and philosophical concepts. Kant believed that philosophical concepts can be defined, where as empirical concepts can only be made explicit. The dualistic nature of life then places it in a unique situation. Without a sharp dividing line of what is life and what is not, philosophically the interpretation of life is hindered. Moreover, scientifically, it can bias research. Undoubtedly, until extraterrestrial life is found, questions surrounding the emergence of our own existence will remain partly a mystery. But science will continue to trumpet her empirical superiority, while philosophy will continue to seduce her to look beyond the natural world for new research paradigms.
