I saw two leading scientists discussing the life of Darwin on Charlie Rose this evening. As expected an interesting discussion, and one that picqued my interest in the ID vs Evolution debate that has been re-invigorated in recent months.
My historical bias has always been towards evolution. My education as an engineer and scientist have provided me with enough information to understand that a world without evolution would be much more dysfunctional than the world we live in. In thinking about this topic again, and considering new beliefs I have formed over the years, it occurs to me that these competing philosophies may be more compatible than either side allows.
In fact, the time for an open discussion on ID may be just right, but not in the context that the neo-conservatives present it today. In fact, an honest discussion may require both sides to reconsider their basis.
In a pre-evolution world, creationism provided a fine solution to the time-limited horizon of thinkers of that day. In human terms, the world had existed for thousands or tens of thousands of years. My parents looked like me, my children looked like me, and I could assume that this was a consistent view across generations. A personified Adam and Eve were part of a lineage that I shared. The timeline of the universe was small, there was not a problem for evolution to help solve.
Darwin opened our eyes to a broader timeline of life and change. Life on this planet had existed for much longer than previous thinkers had assumed, and in larger time scales, vectored changes could be seen. Humans have grown taller, species have gone extinct and diverse living species could be connected through a continuum of related species. A genetic basis for these changes can now provide both a unit of measure (DNA) and a timeline for changes to occur. Evolution is undeniable within the timescale of life on this planet - which we now know is much longer that pre-darwinian peoples could have belived.
Our planet is statistically rare, but not unique. Drake provided a basis for the belief that life on earth is not a singularity, but rather a lucky event for you and I. Our discovery of other life in the universe is limited only by our technology and time to observe. Given these facts, it becomes clear that life on earth is part of a continuum - we are not the first island of life in the universe, nor will we be the last.
In this context, the question of origin rises again. How did life on earth begin and how is life here related to life elsewhere? It is at this juncture that ID and evolution could become more compatible in a unified theory. It should be reasonable to any Darwinian that intelligent life identified Earth as a fertile option for seeding, that the life found here was created as an inter-planetary experient or farm to spread another species to new galactic locales. The fundamental function of life, both plant and animal, seems to be propogation of the species - at any cost. As our technology advances, there is strong reason to believe that terraforming and planet seeding will become part of the human agenda. The largest barrier to such projects is that they would likely be executed across hundreds or thousands of lifetimes - timelines so large, that humans have never before contemplated such possibilities.
If one broadens the timescale of influence and considers the drivers of life, it is reasonable to believe that life on earth was in fact created by a superior being(s) and possibly in their image. The pundits of the neo-conservative ID movement would be more than reluctant to integrate such ideas into their philosophy - but it is one that pragmatisms and faithful could consider.
The fact that creationist events could occur at very large timescales, and evolution is undeniable within timescales we can monitor and relate might provide the foundation for understanding our origins and planning our turn to pass the torch.
:: Links to extremists on either side of this debate appreciated.
