Controversial Paper 1: Spontaneous Generation

Hey guys, its been a while...again. I've got some more of my writing to share with you all.

My science teacher (for both my Microbiology and Anatomy and Physiology classes) is off getting married this week, so I have no class. However, he left me with homework; I've been assigned to write 6 different essays on controversial life science topics. I plan to do all of that today, and am sitting at starbucks on my laptop as I speak. I just finished the first of these papers, which may possibly be my best one. But I want to do them all today, and I hope they can be insightful or at least interesting to you all. And before you read, you all know that I am a strong Christian with a heart for God. However, for the sake of argument and completion of this assignment, I've been using moral, scientific, and ethical logic more than religious arguments. So, please keep that in mind as you read. That said, enjoy, and feel free to leave any comments or opinions of your own. These are all important topics I believe, and perhaps my words can be helpful to those who are or will be starting sciencey classes at college soon.

On The Origin of Life and the Validity of Abiogenesis
by
Timothy Wong

            Life is a curious thing, and has remained a topic of great debate for an innumerable period of time. Today, the popular belief is that life formed as a result of random chance, evolving into every living thing that exists today. I, as a Christian, believe that life was formed by the will of a creator, God. This is not strictly biogenesis (the creation of life from other living material), but rather could be considered creationism. Nonetheless, I intend to show, or at least suggest, that abiogenesis is an invalid theory and scientifically unstable.

            Abiogenesis is the idea that life was formed from non-living material, from chemical and inorganic substances. This concept is, quite simply, spontaneous generation. At the end of his article, John Wilkins makes several summarizing statements about the concept of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. He states that, “None of the people who did crucial experiments on spontaneous generation disproved abiogenesis. At best, they strongly confirmed the hypothesis that modern organisms (mice, maggots, or germs) did not arise in ordinary cases out of nonliving material” (1). What Wilkins suggests here is that Abiogenesis is a valid concept, but not for complex organisms as proven by scientists like Pasteur. Rather, it can be applied to the formation of early life, and be used as a suitable theory for the origin of early cells.

            Numerous theories have sprouted about abiogenesis and how it could have been used in the creation of life. Many of these are vague, and lacking in substance or evidence. Others, like the Oparin-Miller model have a clearer theory. However, through my research, all of these theories can be boiled down to the idea that, “life was not, and then it was”. Simply put, science cannot ignore the fact that abiogenesis is simply spontaneous generation, the formation of life from non-life. And this, to me, is preposterous.

I’m sure it makes sense to many that the proper chemical compositions and combinations could have been brought together and formed into early nucleotides, which then gradually evolved into more and more complex forms of life. But the gap between life and non-life is far too great to explain simply through spontaneous generation. The theory of abiogenesis is no longer treated as theory. And this mindset gives rise to another prominent issue, which is the ultimate argument between creationism and evolutionary theory. From a Christian perspective, the belief that life was formed through random chance without any influence or intelligent design indicates that man desires autonomy. He does not want to be controlled, to be influenced by a higher power. Which is more appealing, the idea that we are a result of random chance and are the height of intelligence and power, or that we were created by a more powerful being, a being that controls and governs us? Surely, the former caters more to our innate desires.
            But I digress. The issue here is not the nature and desires of man, but rather the concept of spontaneous generation. Regardless of whether a theory states that life, “…could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans” or whether it suggests that, “carbon oxides released from deep sea vents could stabilize on iron-sulphates, reacting with molecular hydrogen to form organic monomers”, the ultimate conclusion here is that life formed from inorganic materials in however complex or simple a way that may be (1-2). And this, I believe, is no better than magic. Life cannot form from non-life; it requires either a creator or some other pre-existing organic material in order to generate. That is simply common sense, logically and scientifically.  

In conclusion, despite the plethora of theories and suppositions regarding abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, I remain convinced that, through simple logic and basic scientific research, it is clear that life cannot form from non-living material; that gap is too large. Even if one does not want to believe that the origin of life was brought about as a result of intelligent design, the belief that it was spontaneously generated is just as preposterous a notion.

(1)    Wilkins, J. (2004, April 26). Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

(2)    How did life originate? (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_04