Science Into PhilosophyScience is one of the most fascinating studies one can undertake. Science helps explain how the universe functions. But just as a hammer isn’t the tool to remove a tooth, science isn’t the tool to determine origins. Consider some examples.
AstronomyThe universe inspires believers in creation. Those not believing see only a big bang. Believers in creation can’t “prove” to the satisfaction of disbelievers that creation is real. Skeptics can’t explain where the stuff of the big bang came from.
ChemistryChemistry was once explained in line with religious belief. Chemicals of life, they wrongly claimed, are different from other chemicals. This is called vitalism. The chemicals are organic. Late 19th, early 20th century chemists abandoned vitalism. Why? Because it was proved organic compounds can be made from inorganic ones.
So what? Although vitalism was discredited, many chemists still believe life originated from chemicals. Despite the fact they can’t create so much as even a bacterium!
BiologyOil consists of carbon compounds. They take the form of chains and rings. So oil was assumed by some to originate from decomposed living organisms. This life oriented origin theory of oil is the biotic theory. But oil has been found deep in the earth where decaying biological matter would not reach. This led some scientists to the abiotic theory.
In ConclusionIn view of these and other examples, it seems reasonable to suggest the evolution -vs- creation argument is an exercise in futility in proving one side or the other. Yes, converting science into philosophy in order to explain life’s origins is an exercise in futility.
Note: You might also enjoy the following articles…
- Organic Chemistry and Life: Has Vitalism Been Born Again?
- Where Does Crude Oil Come From? Biotic or Abiotic Processes?