"Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations... may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be."
- Roger Cotes, preface to Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, second edition, 1713.
- Roger Cotes, preface to Sir Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, second edition, 1713.
When it comes to trying to explain how all 'this' came to be, it is far too easy to get caught up in a theory that appeals to your desire for a good story. It was mentioned in my first lecture today that percentages of certain elements in Earth's atmosphere correspond to those present in the comets of the outer solar system, and that this has led to the idea that comet impacts gave us our supply of H2O. This is quite a neat little idea.
It put me in mind of exogenesis (theory that life was transferred to Earth from somewhere else) and panspermia (theory that there are 'seeds' of life throughout the universe and that we came from one of those).
The thing about these three theories is that they put the ultimate answers further away. They're satisfying at first, but ultimately mean that tracing the origin of life will require us to hunt through surrounding space, not just turning over rocks here at home.
This is very similar to the problem with creation myths as an ultimate answer. Arguing creation myths goes a little like this:
"How did all this come to be?" - "God made it." - "Ok. How did God come to be?" Explanation of God would require an even bigger and more complex theory, since it would surely have to be at least as complex as what it created. Arguing exogenesis goes, for all intents and purposes, identically:
"How did all this come to be?" - "Simple lifeforms got to Earth's surface on asteroids, comets, etc. and we evolved from them." - "Ok. How did those lifeforms... form."
The answer is one (enormous) step further away. On the plus side, that step could well be further space exploration, an exciting prospect. And the UK has it's very own space agency now.
It put me in mind of exogenesis (theory that life was transferred to Earth from somewhere else) and panspermia (theory that there are 'seeds' of life throughout the universe and that we came from one of those).
The thing about these three theories is that they put the ultimate answers further away. They're satisfying at first, but ultimately mean that tracing the origin of life will require us to hunt through surrounding space, not just turning over rocks here at home.
This is very similar to the problem with creation myths as an ultimate answer. Arguing creation myths goes a little like this:
"How did all this come to be?" - "God made it." - "Ok. How did God come to be?" Explanation of God would require an even bigger and more complex theory, since it would surely have to be at least as complex as what it created. Arguing exogenesis goes, for all intents and purposes, identically:
"How did all this come to be?" - "Simple lifeforms got to Earth's surface on asteroids, comets, etc. and we evolved from them." - "Ok. How did those lifeforms... form."
The answer is one (enormous) step further away. On the plus side, that step could well be further space exploration, an exciting prospect. And the UK has it's very own space agency now.
No comments:
Post a Comment