I thought I left this behind last semester.
Having taken the Origins of the Universe course last semester, I’ve become fairly acquainted with many theories surrounding the topics of life on earth and evolution. Though most of you have already heard my rants and grievances towards my Origins course, there is one major observation that I failed to share. Even in our modern day, the debate between creationism/intelligent design and science is a cyclic one that usually ends up going nowhere. Either that happens or the debate ends up circling back to what we initially started with.
There are many theories that we can pick to our personal likings, opinions, and beliefs. Some range from the idea that life developed from a “smart chip” that was transported to earth on a comet to the omnipotent belief (or idea, your choice) that there was an intelligent being that created life or the conditions that were suitable for life. As a Pre-med student like one-half of our class, I tend to lean towards the more “scientific” theories such as the “prebiotic soup” or the “common protist ancestor.”
It does not matter what side you choose to argue for. Both religion (usually affiliated with creationism and now intelligent design) and science have their downfalls that usually end up unifying the two into a “rolling wheel,” with each driving each other. If one wanted to argue the origin of life and where it started, they would eventually end up with a cycle.
Figure 1 The wheel of life
For example,
scientist X argues that life evolved from a common protist
ancestor. ID/Creationist Y can challenge that supported claim with the phrase, “So
where did that protist come from? A creator or higher
power of some sort must have designed it.” As time passes by, scientist X finds
evidence and data about a “prebiotic soup” that
created the aforementioned protist. Just like before,
ID/Creationist Y inquires about the origins of that “soup.” This debate can go
on for hours, eventually ending at the question of how the universe actually
started. Another example of this is found in the article, ’Intelligent design’:
The two seemingly polar sides are not mutually exclusive. Whenever one develops a theory, the other will challenge it.
If there is any progress at all, it can be seen in the intelligent design / science debate. The more I hear about it, the more the both sides seem mesh into one single thing working towards a viable answer for where we came from. So not all hope is lost. Like William Saletan mentions, there seems to be some form of agreement between the two sides, where “intelligent design advocates have abandoned the ‘biblical literalism’ of their forebears and have accepted the scientific method [and other science-related theories].”(Saletan, 259)
Like Brad mentioned, unity is needed for some sort of progress. But in my opinion, if this debate is still raging on with neither side agreeing on anything, then this topic is doomed to a state of flux.