Origin of Life — An Accident or A Result of Intelligent Design?

in life •  8 years ago 

It is really a sad and frustrating reality that the most meaningful questions that we have today don’t seem to have any definite answers. The answers that we are looking for to these questions, have always evaded us every time we went looking.

As humans, we are hard wired to ask and the need to know is inherent in us. Therefore it is all the more infuriating that we have barely even begun to understand some of the deepest and the most interesting truths.

Image Credits

For the time being, all we have, are theories. For better or for worst, these give us somethings to think about and gives us the hope that one of these might be the answers that we have always looked for.

In this article, I am going to be discussing about life itself. Nobody can tell for sure when, why or how life came to life (pun intended). Some researchers suggest that it was by accident and some suggest that it was a result of some intelligent design. Lets look at both possibilities and explore just how life might have originated in both the scenarios.

By Accident

1. A Chance Recipe

We all know that Amino acids are the building blocks of life which are themselves made of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon. Life may have started here on Earth by a total co-incidence where these elements came together to form the perfect compound that would go on to become the building block of life.

The first organisms to appear on Earth are believed to be Archaea, which are single-celled life forms. They are quite similar to bacteria but lack a nuclei. These are believed to have developed around 4 billion years ago. Over time, these evolved to be more complex single-celled organisms able to move and procreate which were basically self sustaining organisms.

One has to wonder though, that how can non-living elements like Carbon and Oxygen, come together and form even a basic life form, let alone complex ones. I mean, how does a combination of Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen “know” what to do next. Where does the intelligence or even the awareness come from? 

We may have the answer to the conditions in which life formed but how exactly that happened is still a mystery. The main question is, what animates these non-living particles to become “alive” and evolve over time to become more complex and intelligent.

2. From an Asteroid

Image Credits

Many scientists suggest that life may not have originated from Earth at all. It might have come from an outside source. Earth has always been bombarded by asteroids and many believe that one of them might have brought the building block of life in it.

Then life took the natural course of evolution and went on to become more complex and form intelligent life forms overtime. If this is true we might all be aliens in a sense. Outsiders, who hitched a ride on an asteroid in search of a new home.

While this theory may answer the question of where life came on Earth, it doesn’t answer the bigger question of the origination of life itself. Where did the organisms in the asteroid come from and how did they come into existence. These are questions that no one can answer and remain a mystery.

An Intelligent Design

1. Divine Intervention

All the religions of the world tell us that a divine being called God created all life forms that we see today. The all powerful being made the first man and the first woman. 

God is said to be this omnipotent and the ultimate intelligence, so, the creation of a complex, intelligent life form could be well within his abilities. And not only that, the billions of species we have on earth can also be explained quite easily if we believe that god created everything. 

Just like a writer creates an entire world in his imagination, god may have created the entire existence just by thinking about it. This could also explain any other life forms we may discover in a distant future in the outer space.

2. Creations of an Alien Civilisation

Image Credits

Now this is not a scientific theory but many people, including the scientists and researches, think that life was engineered into existence. Just like we make design and manufacture machines, an extremely advanced alien civilisation might have designed and manufactured life on Earth.

The purposes of such doing can be anything that you can imagine. But it certainly is plausible that the earth might be nothing but a testing environment for an alien race to see how their ‘experiments’ work out.

A layman has no idea just how intricate and fine tuned even a single living cell is. Something that we can’t even see, has a multi-dimensional complexity. Ask a scientist about how fascinating the design of life is, and you might gain an understanding.

Such designs can only be expected of a very intelligent species who must be at least millions of years ahead of us to be able to do this. Maybe it really was aliens who created us and we know them by the name of “God”. We might have the right idea that someone created us but the wrong one of exactly who it was.


Personal Comment: I have tried to examine the topic as objectively as possible. I hope you read this article with an open mind. I am not biased towards any particular theory as I do not know the answer and won’t claim to have one either! It’s all possibilities.


Follow me for more awesome content @sauravrungta. :)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Intelligent design is the most logical and most probable from my perspective.

yes exactly.....something must have "breathed life" into those non-living elements for them to adopt complex behaviour!

That's a great way to say it.

Why do you say that? What makes intelligent design any more logical then random chance? Not criticizing, just curious what your thoughts are!

well in my opinion, nob-living elements like hydrogen and oxygen came together to form a living system. How does a non-living thing "know" how to do that.

By that, i came to the conclusion that some "intelligent being" be it god or alien species, might have given this non-living elements, a "software" to be able to form said systems.

Just like how a laptop is just a combination of metal, plastic and silicon before software is booted on to it. Only after the operating software is installed, can a laptop function. Without it, it is just paper weight!

An Intelligent Design would be my answer if I compare all listed above.

yes, that seems more plausible to me too!

A nice summary but I would just make a few corrections:

some suggest that it was a result of some intelligent design.

Those people are not researchers or scientists they are religious zealots.

They are quite similar to bacteria but lack a nuclei.

Bacteria don't have nuclei either. They are both prokaryotic cell types. The reason for the distinction seems to be related more to metabolic differences and genetic lineage though I'm sure a microbiologist could clarify that more.

actually some scientists and researchers believe this too....that it might be due to an intelligent design (not necessarily god)

on the bacteria part i agree...my bad! will be corrected :)

actually some scientists and researchers believe this too....that it might be due to an intelligent design (not necessarily god)

They might but it is not scientific. This is why there are so many arguments about teaching intelligent design in science class. Religious extremists want it to be taught but obviously anybody who understands science does not.

That's really inaccurate. There is a strong scientific backing for intelligent design. That doesn't mean that the science backs a specific religious account, but only that they perceive their research as backing ID.
The word "zealot" could equally be ascribed to evolutionists. It's a hypothesis with zero observation. Adaptations are evident in singular species, but never has one species been witnessed to turn into another, or even adapt beyond their own identification. This is part of the "accident" in the OP's first example. It's simply not scientifically backed beyond the hypothetical. Yet both positions self-identify as "theories".
What's good for the goose is good for the gander in regard to scientific backing. As the OP pointed out, it's not something that either side can claim irrefutably. To do so, for either side, requires faith in something, whether it's God or chance.

That's really inaccurate. There is a strong scientific backing for intelligent design. That doesn't mean that the science backs a specific religious account, but only that they perceive their research as backing ID.

It is entirely accurate. There is zero scientific backing for it. Linking to religious propaganda or publications funded by religious organisations doesn't change that fact. Further that link is for a survey not scientific research. This is the kind of nonsense that is put forward by non scientists as evidence. It is based on religous belief and ignorance of how evolution works.

It is not science full stop. Also you have already pointed out in one of the other responses that you have a preset belief in ID and I suspect that is based on religious belief whether you admit to it or not.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander in regard to scientific backing. As the OP pointed out, it's not something that either side can claim irrefutably. To do so, for either side, requires faith in something, whether it's God or chance.

I think you are revealing your lack of scientific and mathematical understanding here. Chance requires no faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Chance can be tested.

Sorry we must agree to disagree because I suspect neither of us will budge:)

Sometimes the goal of the discussion is respect and understanding, not winning.
First fact - the publication references is a non-religious publication that shows that scientists endorse objectivity in school curriculum for scientific reasons. I suspect you glanced at it far too quickly. In fact, directly from that document:

“We Affirm:
That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;
That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;
That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;
That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them; and,
That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.

They go on to state that they oppose both religious and anti-religious indoctrination in class, specifically in the field of science.

Further down in this non-religious document is the claim"

248 Scientists Express Skepticism of the Claims of Darwinism. The following lists reflect the sentiments of scientists with respect to the claims of Darwinism.
The first list consists of 28 Georgia scientists who subscribed to the statement below during September 2002 as the Cobb County School Board was considering the adoption of an objective origins science policy. The second list consists of an additional 127 scientists from around the world who have subscribed from time to time. The third list consists of 93 New Mexico scientists including those from both university and non-university settings. Perusal of these lists reveals that they are composed of highly qualified and distinguished scientists, including members of the National Academy of Science, university professors and research scientists.
The statement subscribed to by these scientists is:
“We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This isn't an area where I am ignorant. It's an area where I am very educated and firm, but gracious. The last page of the non-religious document provided goes on to back up my claim that many scientists embrace ID for scientific reasons, as do many others.

There are undoubtedly a significant number of scientists who favor an evolution only approach to origins science. However, the above statistics show significant scientific and public disagreement with that view. We believe that this data merely reflects the tip of an iceberg of public and scientific support for objectivity in the way we publicly address a question so fundamental to any belief system - Where do we come from?

@anotherjoe Posting here due to nesting.

Sometimes the goal of the discussion is respect and understanding, not winning.

I would agree but it also involves understanding the subject to which you are referring. You are the one who started out saying my entirely accurate statements were inaccurate and went on to put forward a survey of dubious origin as "evidence". Show me some peer-reviewed evidence and I might be more interested.

This isn't an area where I am ignorant. It's an area where I am very educated and firm, but gracious. The last page of the non-religious document provided goes on to back up my claim that many scientists embrace ID for scientific reasons, as do many others.

Glad to hear but you fail to grasp that scientists own personal beliefs are not science. A survey is not a scientific paper.

ID is religious belief. Nobody embraces it for scientific reasons they just tell themselves that to make themselves feel better.

If the best you can come up with is a survey of scientists who have doubts about evolution then you are really grasping at straws.

If proponents of ID really want to be taken seriously they must put forward genuine research and they need to be open about who is funding it the same way as everyone else has to be.

Anyway please don't take this as a personal attack. I just will never agree to intelligent design being scientific and I suspect you will not agree the contrary.

Nothing personal at all. I appreciate your kind tone, even if we disagree. It's a good discussion.
Of course it's not the best I can do. You made the statements:

They might but it is not scientific. This is why there are so many arguments about teaching intelligent design in science class. Religious extremists want it to be taught but obviously anybody who understands science does not.

I pointed out that this is erroneous. Then I provided a non-religious survey from a non-religious site that provides evidence to the contrary. My goal was not to provide scientific evidence for ID, but evidence that non-religous scientists disagree with you. An objective search for scientists who avow intelligent design for non-religious reasons will back up my claim.
To turn the table: There is no evidence for evolution, full stop. There is only evidence for adaptation. You can believe what you will, but science provides no backing other than hypothetical argumentation.

Divine design.

:)

Fun stuff, and I think you handled it well. I'm admittedly biased, but...

even for number three, you need some sort of original originator. The first spark of life was either preexistent intelligence or an accident. In my mind, anyway, those are the only two options. Well, in my mind, only option one is really possible, but I understand why many argue for the other.