Summary of Today's Topic

Iris Fry writes about the different theories about the emergence of life on Earth. Science and religion have always been at odds, and this debate is no exception. In this case, the opposing viewpoints are chance and design. Fry believes that these two alternatives have been put up as a false dichotomy. It is not and does not have to be an either or situation. The third option we are presented with is the idea of necessity, or "scaffolding."

Chance is the idea of a "happy accident"; that life came into this world with no purpose. All that was needed for this highly improbablem fortuitous "first event" was one successful collision of molecules. This reduces the prupose of human life to, as the name of the theory states, a mere accident. This is the first problem that people have with the idea of life emerging by chance.  Many people like to believe that their life has meaning, and this thought undermines that.  Also, this alternative makes the chances of life emerging on Earth so slight that they are close to zero.  Because of this, the idea of any extraterrestrial life is also low, making it also non-pluralistic. The idea of a "chance theory" is often consistent with natural law, but because of the extremely low probabilites, the emergence of life can neither be predicted nor reproduced in a lab.  Many chance theories have such low probabilities that Richard Dawkins would classify them as "miracles."  Thus many opponents say that these theories are insufficient and too close to design theory anyway.

On the other hand, design theory is the idea that an intelligent designer created life on Earth. It avoids the problem of extremely low probability of life emerging by chance, but does not really explain anything scientifically about the origins of life.  However, an advantage of design theory allows room for other ideas about the actual emergence of life, such as panspermia.  But, as  David Hume wrote in 1779, design is not a falsifiable theory, and therefore cannot be proven by science. It cannot be proven by science because you cannot test the supernatural. Hume said that it is a logical fallacy to create an analogy between the intelligent human mind and the intelligent supernatural designer.  The human mind, if created by an intelligent designer, would not be able to fathom the mind that created it.  There is also a problem when you state that the designer had to come from somewhere, and you are sent into an infinite regress; unless you say that it is a supernatural being, but then you are right back to the problem with the limits of the human mind.  Hume also said that if there was a designer and the designer created evil, waste, and some organisims lack of adaptations it indicates an incompetent designer.  He used this to explain that since an incompetent designer is as good as no designer that there really is no need for a designer in an origin of life theory unless a reason could be given as to why they would create such problems. The whole designer problem comes down to a person's faith in the unseen. To accept this theory, one must believe that an unseen and untestable deity created the universe.

This brings us to Fry's alternative, necessity or scaffolding.  This solves the problem with the RNA/DNA/protein loop by saying that non-organic structures similar to these existed and made it possible for organic forms to develop. The analogy is that the non-organic systems made a sort of scaffolding, and when the organic systems were finished developing into a full arch, the non-organic systems disappeared, leaving the organic systems intact.  These systems can include replication (Cairn-Smith's clay or Wachtershauser's pyrite), metabolic (or autocatalytic) functions, genetics, or pyrites.  This alternative is preferable to many because it resolves many issues that chance and design could not.  It follows the natural laws of chemistry, biology and physics. It can be tested and repeated in a labratory setting. This is very important because that is what science is based on, whether it can be falsified. Many like that it agrees with science but does not necessarily take out the option of an intelligent designer.  It also increases the probablity of life developing.  Some problems include that it assumes that natural law is true and it makes assumptions about the conditions of Earth billions of years ago.

Despite all of this, finding the truth amongst these ideas is impossible.  These theories show us more of the conflict between religion and science. Religion searches for a purpose, puts faith in unseen things, and believe in the supernatural and revelations.  Science relies on empirical evidence, observation, and patterns in nature that are testable and repeatable.  Science has limits to what it can and cannot explain and the design theory is one that cannot be tested. None of these can be proven, but they also cannot be disproven; making this question one that cannot be answered definitively.  This topic surely adds much more to the discussion of extraterrestrial life and adds more information to the growing list of questions about the origin of life.  And just becuase the questions about a designer or "is life by chance?" are not answered now it does not mean that they will never be answered.  Like the search for life on Mars, one possibility for finding the solution for where life came from is that maybe we don't have the technology yet to really test for the origin of life or the technology to prove or find whether there is a designer.  Only time will tell and hopefully give us answers to these questions. 

Primary Sources

"Origin-of-life scientists will probably not consider these suggestions as serious and will continue their research, looking for "mechanisms other than chance" that could have brought about the self-organization of primitive biological systems under prevailing prebiotic conditions. Making a committment to either a creationist or a scientific position on the question of the emergence of life is completely legitimate as long as the implications of the choice are clear."

(Fry 215)

"We living creatures, [Monod] claimed, are here not because of any physical process leading up to life's emergence but only because 'our number came up in the Monte Carlo game.' "

(Fry 195)

"The question, could life have originated by a chance occurance of atoms, clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined wiht the knowledge that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequence other than chance occurances must have leas to the apperance of life" (Bernal 1965:53).

(Fry 196)

Key Terms and Definitions

Methodological naturalism-  aka. natural law or patterns in nature

Metaphysical naturalism-  taking the next step and saying that natural law is all there is; no design

Relevant Links

http://www.experiencefestival.com/gnter_wchtershuser

http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=837