Hugh Ross ** and Fazale Rana *** )
Currently scientists stand no closer to understanding life's beginning
than they did when Stanley Miller conducted his first experiments
fifty years ago. Though some scientists assert that the research is in
its infancy, significant resources have been brought to bear on the
origin of life question over the past five decades. To date, no real
answers have emerged. Rather, a misguided approach has essentially
stalled the research program.
Best-selling author Paul Davies makes this point inhis book The Fifth Miracle:
When I set out to write this book, I was convincedthat science was
close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origin… Having spent a year
or two researching in the field, I am now of the opinion that there
remains a hugegulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is
not merely ignorance about certain technical details; itis a major
conceptual lacuna. (Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle:The Searchfor the
Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), pp.
17-18)
Davies' statements likely surprise most people, including scientists.
From popular media reports, one would think researchers have all but
finalized the explanation for life's beginning. But such is not the
case.
Davies explains why this mismatch persists between public perception
and stark reality:
Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin
of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely
admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their
unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious …..
explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance
will undermine funding. (Davies, pp.17-18)
So scientists are keeping quiet and searching for new directions in
which to proceed. Their behind-the-scenes frustration became evident
(to these authors) at the combined meetings of the International
Society for the Study of the Origin of Life and the International
Conference on the Origin of Life, held both in 1999 at the University
of California, San Diego, and in 2002 in Oaxaca, Mexico (hereafter
referred to as ISSOL 1999 or ISSOL 2002). This joint scientific
meeting, held every three years, attracts leading origin of life
investigators from around the world and serves as a platform for them
to share and discuss their latest findings.
The atmosphere at such gatherings typically crackles with anticipation
as participants gather to hear about new discoveries and
breakthroughs. However, at both of these last two ISSOL events, a grim
mood laced with desperation prevailed. Participants acknowledged that
some fifty years of well-funded investigation have led to one
barricade after another. The old intractable problems remain as new
ones cometo light. (Fazale R. Rana, "Origin-of-Life Predictions Face
Off: Evolution vs Biblical Creation," Facts for Faith 6 (Q2 2001),
pp.41-47)
…..Origin of life researchers cannot identify any location on
primordial Earth suitable for production of prebioticmolecules. Those
studyingthe problems cannot explain how the uniform "handedness"
(homochirality) of amino acids, nucleotids, and sugars could emerge in
any so-called prebiotic soup.
Data from the geological, geochemical, and fossil records all place
impossible constraints on naturalistic scenarios. Life arose rapidly
and early in Earth's history - as soon asEarth could possible support
it. Origin of life researchers recognize thatlife had no more than
tens of millions of years to emerge. Life also appeared under
amazingly harsh conditions - conditions that would not allow life to
survive, let alone originate.
Earth's first life was complex chemically… Consistent with this.
Investigators have discovered that life in its most minimal form
requires an astonishing number of proteins that must be spatially and
temporally organized within the cell.
Many [under the leadership of militant atheist Richard Dawkins
converted to the Space Religion ] now speculate that life may have
originated somewhere other than on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment