Wprowadzenie problematyki początków życia do obszaru badań naukowych stanowiło naruszenie ‘obowiązujących’ struktur wiedzy (zwłaszcza separacji filozofii i przyrodoznawstwa). Przez kilka dziesięcioleci prawo do badań w tym zakresie okupione było ze strony (części) uczonych milczącą zgodą na omijanie ‘drażliwej’ kwestii ich uwarunkowań ‘pozanaukowych’. Strategia ta okazuje się nieskuteczna. Nietrafna jest również próba sprowadzania dokonań całej dyscypliny do jednej teorii, rozmaicie nazywanej, ale w każdym razie kojarzonej z modelem „darwinowskiego małego stawu” (model ten, jak pokazuję, został w wielu teoriach znacznie zmodyfikowany). Dyscyplina (...) ta, owszem, ma swój wspólny mianownik, ale jest nim teza o charakterze filozoficznym: życie jest naturalną emergentną własnością materii. (shrink)

The philosophical foundations of the theory of molecular self-organization (TMS) are reconstructed and compared with the explicit methodological statements made by occasions by its author(s). Special attention is paid to those philosophical fundamentals of TMS which can turn out helpful in answering the question evoking vivid discussions in the philosophy of nature of the recent decades: whether it is possible to search for a physico-chemical explanation of the genesis of life and at the same time defend its specific character. In (...) other words: do the latest findings in self-organization of prebiological molecules allow to overcome the traditional disjunction “either physics or evolution” and to replace it with the conjunction “physics and evolution”? (shrink)

The author attempts to answer the question, how it is possible that many scholars - including those representing prestigious universities and research institutes - are ready to consider creationists critique of the origin- of-life theories as "valuable", "scientifically useful", "cogent", and "clarifying our thinking". The answer seems to be simple: the same metascientific assumptions, which constitute a basis of antievolutionistic argumentation, still live in the philosophical consciousness (or subconsciousness) of a lot of scientists. Among these assumptions is he thesis that (...) order does not arise from disorder and the principle of the uniformity of nature. (shrink)

The essence of the science dealing with the origin of life, called protobiology, is based on the idea of the evolutionary formation of the first living beings from non-living matter. This thesis is generally accepted by both scientists and philosophers. However, the agreement stops at the same point at which it begins. At least this is the case for the scientists. Meanwhile, the philosophers appear to be amazingly concordant where the consensus, owing to their different orientations, might be rather unexpected. (...) I demonstrate that at the source of many recently declared views concerning the philosophical foundations of origins-of-life studies—views both of scientists and philosophers—there is a misconception of a fundamental nature. I also try to reveal some sources of this misconception and its sometimes peculiar consequences. (shrink)

The subject of the paper is the social function of the philosophy of nature. The author presents briefly his own position in this topic and gives an evaluation of the literature on the philosophy of nature in the recent decades. According to him, the opposition against the abuse of science for the purpose of social mystification stems mostly from (philosophizing) scientists themselves and sociologists of knowledge. Academic philosophers—regardless of the variety of their ontological orientations—are prone rather to cultivate the metaphilosophical (...) mythology (of positivistic origins). (shrink)

Introducing the issue of the beginnings of life into the realm of scientific research posed a danger for the valid structures of knowledge. For a couple of tens of years, scientists have dealt with this issue ignoring the “touchy” problem of its “extrascientific” groundings and its consequences for the Weltanschauung. In the face of new challenges, this strategy proved to be erroneous.