The main aim of science is to give a meaningful explanation of natural phenomena (Pigliucci 21). Among the phenomena that science has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation is the question of the origin of life. Currently, no one knows where the origin of life is. There are several theories that have been advanced to explain the origin of life. The theories postulate that life either began here on earth or elsewhere in the universe.
There are those who believe in the supernatural creation of life. Some scientists who gave us such theories include Hoyle and Chandra who suggested the existence of a creator. However, their view of creation is different from the traditional creation story. They believed that there is a supernatural creator who seeded the earth with life forms. Another theorist is Duane Gish whose theory is more similar to the traditional creation theory.
The main weakness of the two theories is their inability to give an explanation that can be tested. It seems that the theories shift the debate of the origin of life to a place outside our planet. They do not pinpoint the exact place where life began and the dynamics involved in the creation.
Another explanation on the origin of life is that life originated from extraterrestrial space. Inherent in this theory is the assumption that organic matter from outer space entered the earth without losing viability. The theory has been supported by the discovery of organic molecules in space that may have played role information of the first life forms.
Perhaps the most realistic explanation is that of molecular origin. Living systems are made up of proteins and nucleic acids. Between the nucleic acids and the proteins, it is not clear which appeared first. However, it is thought that the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) may have appeared first.
Primordial soup and primordial pizza are closely related to this theory. To understand the origin of life, an understanding of what qualifies life is necessary. Living systems have the following qualities; growth, replication, response to the environment and metabolism.
The author of this article has tried to be objective throughout the article. However, in some instances, it is apparent that the author has taken a stand and is not arguing from a neutral point of view. For example, the author is quick to dismiss the creation theory without doing a proper examination of the facts. However, he is accurate in pointing out that the absence of positive evidence does not prove the existence of a phenomenon.
The author examines the theories and can point out the merits and demerits of each. To a large extent, the author can maintain objectivity. However, his use of the first person singular leaves the reader with questions as to whether the author is arguing objectively. Scientific papers or articles are usually written in the third person singular.
This is because in science the reader is not interested in the author. The reader is interested in the content. Use of the first person singular gives the impression that the author is merely giving his opinion. This may affect the credibility of the paper.
The article examines the majority of the theories on the subject. This ensures that no important arguments are missed. Comparing several theories gives the impression that the analysis is thorough and proper. The article ends by recommending further testing of some theories. This is a proper stand to take since no theory has fully explained the origin of life.
Works Cited
Pigliucci, Massimo. “Where do we come from?” Skeptical Inquirer. 23.5 (1999): 21-29. Web. 14 March 2013.