The Origin of Life: A Pause for Clarity

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1} Of course, Professor Dawkins goes on to tell us that the appearance of design is an illusion, that there is a "blind watchmaker" behind all the appearances of design we see in life, and indeed in the universe.

However, this leap of logic is not necessarily warranted. Professor Dawkins has chosen, not to follow the evidence where it leads, but instead to impose his own materialistic worldview on the evidence, thus ruling out design by default. It seems, that as a scientist, professor Dawkins and others would want to follow the evidence where it leads, and not constrain themselves to results based on a priori assumptions. 

The study of the origin of life is an example of science trying to force a materialist explanation on to something that by its very nature defies a purely materialistic explanation. Here are some of the objections that were raised concerning the article on The (Not So) Simple Life. 

"If I were a scientist in this field, I would hypothesize that complicated life would arise from a continuum of increasing less complex phenomenon. I would base this hypothesis on natural data that I and other scientists have collected, measured, and discussed in the scientific forum." Here we see the materialistic (natural data) view that Professor Dawkins espouses is the only acceptable evidence.

"I disagree that scientists "demand" a natural explanation. They [scientists] are observers." Here the commentor disagreed after previously agreeing with me about the demand for materialistic explanation. This is misleading. Scientists are not merely observers. Science is an enterprise that tries to explain why the things we observe are that way. Done correctly it can shed light on many things, and without controversy science has led to improving our quality of life through the study of medicine and in many other areas. These advances were not done through mere observation, but through the application of knowledge gained through experimentation. 

"They [scientists] are observers." If scientists are merely observers, then I have several questions.

(1) When have scientists ever observed "complicated life [arising] from a continuum of increasing less complex phenomenon"?

(2) When have scientists ever observed any form of life that did NOT have one of the nine minimum standards that I listed in my article on The (Not So) Simple Life?

(3) When have scientists ever observed "simple" RNA, nucleic acids, peptides, and/or enzymes, not to mention complicated molecular machines (such as ATP Synthase), protein macromolecules, DNA, and etc. arising in a blind and unguided naturalistic process?    

(4) When have scientists ever observed life that did not contain Functional Sequence Complexity (A linear, digital, cybernetic string of symbols representing syntactic, semantic and pragmatic prescription; each successive sign in the string is a representation of a decision-node configurable switch-setting – a specific selection for function.)?

(5) When have scientists ever observed Functional Sequence Complexity arising by anything other than intelligent agency?

These questions are actually pretty easy to answer with one word: never. However, scientists have been actively engaged in trying to bring about "complicated life [arising] from a continuum of increasing less complex phenomenon" for over a hundred years, and they have very little to show for their efforts. This is not contested, even among origin of life scientists. Need a reference for that? here you go...

"However, the origin of life—or, to be more precise, the origin of the first replicator systems and the origin of translation-remains a huge enigma, and progress in solving these problems has been very modest — in the case of translation, nearly negligible. Some potentially fruitful observations and ideas exist, such as the discovery of plausible hatcheries for life, the networks of inorganic compartments at hydrothermal vents, and the chemical versatility of ribozymes that fuels the RNA World hypothesis. However, these advances remain only preliminaries, even if important ones, because they do not even come close to a coherent scenario for prebiological evolution, from the first organic molecules to the first replicator systems, and from these to bona fide biological entities in which information storage and function are partitioned between distinct classes of molecules (nucleic acids and proteins, respectively)."

"In my view, all advances notwithstanding, evolutionary biology is and will remain woefully incomplete until there is at least a plausible, even if not compelling, origin of life scenario." Koonin, Eugene V. (2012). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. , Pearson Education, Inc., Publishing as FT Press Science, New Jersey, page 417.

Dr. Koonin, we find ourselves in agreement on this point. After over a hundred years of scientific inquiry, there is currently no coherent, compelling nor plausible materialistic explanation that tells us how "complicated life [arose, or even] would arise from a continuum of increasing less complex phenomenon". One might wonder when other avenues might be explored.

Isaiah 29:16  "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?" This certainly appears to be the case, doesn't it?

Thank you for taking the time to read my article. For more information on how I keep my worldview informed please go to http://crossroadspbc.org/