AS Science In Society 1.11
Teacher Notes
Introduction
This considers the difference between scientific and non-scientific ideas,
in the context of the origins of life. The ideas include the hypothesis that
life did not originate on Earth. As such it highlights the significance of any
future discovery of life elsewhere, and hence the profound cultural
importance of ‘SETI’ projects. It is, of course, an area of sensitivity, and
the activity does not set out to do anything other than to explore the
distinction between scientific ideas and ideas provided by written
authority. Any preference of one over the other is a matter for the
student, in the light of exploration and with the benefit of thoughtful
discussion.
A key part of the distinction is that science does not offer certain truth,
despite the apparent confidence of some individual scientists. The
provisionality is a weakness that is a strength – science can be checked,
and is ever-exposed to falsification, by observation.
Resources
Students need the means to find out more about ideas of primeval soup,
panspermia, and creationism.
The activity
Students work in groups three to explore each of the three ideas –
primeval soup, panspermia and creationism. They then combine their
findings.
How Science Works
Developing and testing
scientific explanations and
Relations between science
and society
The activity is about the status
of scientific knowledge relative
to that of authority knowledge.
An important point is that while
there are individual scientists
who see their knowledge as
absolute, science is
continuously exposed to new
data that can show its ideas to
be incorrect. Thus science can
only ever provide provisional
knowledge and not certain
knowledge, and can only be
judged by its continuing
survival in the face of a flow of
new data. Science says
nothing about absolute
knowledge, but leaves that to
other kinds of human activity.
The primacy of observation in
science has, in the past,
resulted in conflict with other
kinds of activity.
Points that might be raised in discussion
Ideas 1 and 2 are both scientific hypotheses, in that they can be
checked, and potentially proved to be wrong, by observations. Idea 3 cannot be proved to be wrong by
observations, and is not a scientific hypothesis.
Ideas 1 and 2 are provisional – further observations could, potentially, prove them to be wrong. Such
scientific ideas, however, are sometimes agreed by debate to be the best possible interpretation of
observations, and then they might be called established theories. Idea 1 is probably the preferred theory
amongst many scientists, but it is not established to the extent that theories of, say, the existence of
atoms are. Idea 3 usually claims absolute truth – it is a matter of ‘faith’ that is either fully accepted or not
accepted at all.
Many scientists will debate with passion about their preferred ideas, but if science works as it should
(and it sometimes take time to do so) only those idea that are not falsified by observations will,
ultimately, survive. Thus science is always exposed, by scientists, to new observations. Holders of faith,
Page 1
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2008
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges
AS Science In Society 1.11
Teacher Notes
in most cases, do not suppose that their fundamental beliefs can be shown to be false. Some religious
organisations have been particularly intolerant of challenges.
Science yields predictive powers – the ability to forecast the behaviours of materials, for example. As
such it is certainly very useful. It does not claim to provide absolute truth, but merely the best possible
interpretation of observations. These interpretations often have profound cultural as well as practical
significance (as in the case of the Copernican revolution, for example).
Science deals with the observable, and faith does not. They are not fundamentally in opposition,
although scientific interpretations have sometimes required religious authorities to change their views.
October 2008
Page 2
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2008
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges
AS Science In Society 1.11
Student sheets
Introduction
How did life begin on Earth? It’s a big question.
There are some ideas that can be tested by observation. These are scientific hypotheses.
An idea that can’t be tested by observation is not necessarily wrong. There is no way of checking directly
to see if it is wrong or if it is right. The only way to judge it is by its ‘authority’ – the authority of the written
word or of established human organisations.
Here are three ideas:
IDEA 1: Primeval soup – some complexities are better than others
Complex carbon-based chemicals existed on the young Earth, billions of years ago. Influences such as
sunlight and lightning produced some increasingly complicated chemicals. There was no shortage of
time, and many kinds of complex molecules formed, though most of them did not last very long. Some of
the chemicals – very few to start with - were able to make copies of themselves, so that when the
original molecules were destroyed by their environment the copies still existed, and these could make
more copies. Complexity increased – groups of molecules that could work together were particularly
advantaged. Some molecules could capture energy from sunlight, for example, while others could form
sacks to hold the collaborating molecules together. Complex collections of molecules became cells, like
the cells of bacteria, algae and humans that we can see today.
IDEA 2: Panspermia – we are all aliens
This is a similar hypothesis to ‘primeval soup’, with the big difference that it makes the suggestion that
the early stages of development of complexity did not take place on Earth. It suggests that the molecules
or collections of molecules that provide the basis for life exist across the Universe. In suitable places,
such as the Earth, these can develop into more complex forms over very long periods of time.
Complexity that makes survival more likely is, well, more likely to survive. It’s a process of natural
selection.
IDEA 3: Creationism – human life was created in its present form for a purpose that lies outside
nature
The previous ideas do not provide a reason WHY complexity should increase and life should begin, but
they provide suggestions of HOW it could have happened. Some people believe strongly that there must
be a reason why – that life, especially human life, exists for a purpose. This purpose, they believe, lies
outside observable nature, or is ‘supernatural’. They believe that the purpose was and is provided by a
God or gods who care about the lives of individual people. Creationists go further, and where the writing
(or text or scripture) specifies a particular timescale for the history of the Earth and of life that is at odds
with timescales developed from observations, they dismiss the analysis of the observations.
Page 1
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2008
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges
AS Science In Society 1.11
Student sheets
The activity
In a group of three, each choose one of the ideas. Find out more about your allocated idea. Find out:
 what its origins are
 whether it makes predictions that can be checked by observations
 whether those who accept the idea believe that it provides certain truth
 whether it accepts or dismisses challenge to its suggestions or claims
Decide:
 whether the idea is scientific a scientific hypothesis or a non-scientific idea
 whether the idea claims to have ‘provisional’ or uncertain truth
 whether the idea claims to have absolute or certain truth
 if extraterrestrial life were found, what that might that tell us about the three ideas
Present your information and conclusions to the rest of the group.
You could repeat this by choosing three people from the class to make presentations to the whole class.
Discuss:
People with faith believe that human life has a supernatural purpose. Science does not address
questions of purpose but only questions of processes. It does not provide certain or absolute truth but is
always open to question. Does that mean that:
 science – trying to understand the world through observation – is a waste of time?
 that science and faith are incompatible opposites?
Page 2
©The Nuffield Foundation, 2008
Copies may be made for UK in schools and colleges