Life does not easily fit into scientific theories. For evolutionists, particularly those with an atheistic perspective, the hypothesis of abiogenesis is essential as it seeks to explain the origin of the first living cell, namely a bacterium. However, research focuses solely on the biological and scientific aspects of the issue. Meanwhile, another, perhaps more significant, question arises: how did that first cell begin to move on its own?
Abiogenesis is the theory that living organisms originated directly from non-living matter. Its counterpart, biogenesis, asserts that life can only arise from existing life. The hypothesis of abiogenesis proposes that the first living organisms on Earth emerged spontaneously from inanimate matter, without the influence of a higher intelligence. Is this really how life began?
Attempts to create artificial life
Scientists today are exploring this question through experimentation. Several recent studies have successfully produced partially artificial biological cells, including xenobots, which can be programmed using digital tools.1 However, these cells are always derived from naturally occurring ones, with their DNA modified by researchers.
The creation of a fully artificial biological cell with an altered genetic code, or even an entirely synthetic one, remains a major challenge. Research in this field has been ongoing for around 20 years. Scientists identify three key issues in achieving this goal:
- Disassembling and organizing the various parts of the cell itself,
- Biochemical metabolism, which provides energy to the cell,
- Control of genetic information, allowing the creation of proteins.2
Thus far, only the most basic mechanisms related to the first and second aspects have been replicated. The third remains unresolved: how the genetic code will interact with existing biological machinery. Scientists aim to place it in an artificial liposome containing the necessary components and metabolic processes for protein synthesis, then observe whether replication occurs.3 If successful, this would represent a major advancement. Would it, however, truly explain how life on Earth began?
The philosophical perspective on artificial life
Biophysicist Petra Schwille from the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Martinsried, Germany, believes that a truly living organism must evolve and adapt to its environment. ‘Something that only keeps forming is not yet life – though I would be satisfied with it. […] For a cell to be alive, it must develop new functions’, Schwille argues. Similarly, biophysicist Marileen Dogterom, commenting on the above-mentioned experiment, poses questions such as: ‘Will this be life? Will it be autonomous? Will it be controllable?’, which are mostly of a philosophical nature.4
Scientists hope that within the next decade, they will be able to create a true, living synthetic bacterial cell. However, it seems that creating a genuinely living artificial cell, one that grows, develops, and evolves, requires much more than just machinery, energy, and genetic information. Current experiments replicate the mechanisms of living cells but do not create a living cell from scratch. This raises the question: what does it truly mean for a cell to be alive?
What is life?
Inanimate matter is naturally subject to various physical forces, such as gravity and electromagnetism, as well as chemical processes. These occur almost ‘on their own’ due to the inherent properties of elementary particles and elements. Life, however, is different. When we refer to ‘life’, we mean an organism that responds to stimuli and possesses something resembling agency or intentionality – an organism that moves under its own power, consumes food, and so on. No inanimate matter behaves in this way.
Thus, this is not only a scientific issue but also a philosophical one. Richard Cameron, a philosopher with expertise in Aristotle’s teleology, explains it as follows:
‘Modern biologists, philosophers of biology, and researchers working on “artificial life” still need to provide a satisfactory account of what it means to be alive. I support the view that Aristotle can help us fill this gap. […] Aristotle did not consider life and teleology to overlap by chance, but defined life in terms of teleology, arguing that it is essential for the life of living organisms.’5
According to this view, living organisms are teleological by nature, meaning they are driven by goals they set for themselves. These goals may include obtaining food, reproducing, or protecting themselves from harm. In other words, living organisms establish tasks or objectives, either for themselves or for others, and work towards achieving them, for example, by moving in a particular direction. This is the agency of living organisms, which applies to both humans and the simplest organisms, such as bacteria.
The biggest issue with the theory of abiogenesis
If we accept the theories of evolution and abiogenesis as true, the emergence of a living cell would be a remarkable novelty. It is something that did not exist before, yet for some reason, it suddenly came into being. Living organisms are no longer simply governed by inanimate forces of nature, whether physical or chemical, but possess their own forces, allowing them to perform tasks that enable survival and reproduction.
Therefore, the hypothesis of abiogenesis must explain not only how the necessary chemical components gave rise to the first biological cell but also how this cell acquired the agency for autonomous action. This can even be connected to the question of why the first cell was alive, rather than remaining inert like the matter from which it is believed to have originated.
At present, scientists have not found answers to these questions. One might ask: will they ever be able to provide an answer?
Beyond materialism
Scientists will not answer these questions unless they look beyond naturalism and materialism. The source of life must be sought outside of matter. Only a being that already possesses life (agency) can give it to something or someone else. In the Book of Genesis, we read that God formed man from clay, yet the man was not alive.6 It was only when God breathed life into him that Adam became a living being. This suggests that the source of all life can only be found in God.7
The scientific experiments mentioned above will never prove that life arose on its own. They can only show that the source of agency lies beyond matter—in God. In addition, they already indicate that biological life was designed. While humans can disassemble a machine, reassembling it is much more difficult. In this case, we are dealing with biological machinery that operates only when all its components are in place.8 This serves as direct evidence of intelligent design.
By the way, we recommend reading the articles:
- The Fate of the Universe – What Awaits Our Cosmos?
- Ota Benga – The Man Who Became a Zoo Exhibi
- Did Dinosaurs Coexist with Humans?
- Chinese Pictograms and the Story of Genesis
- The Qumran Scrolls – The Most Important Discovery in Biblical Archaeology
Footnotes
- Silver, M., 2021. Scientists Create the Next Generation of Living Robots. TuftsNow. Available at: https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/scientists-create-next-generation-living-robots
- Powell, K., 2018. How Biologists Are Creating Life-Like Cells from Scratch. Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Cameron, R., 2006. Aristotle on the Animate: Problems and Prospects. Bios: Epistemological and Philosophical Foundation of Life Sciences, Rome, February 23–24. In: Flew, A. & Varghese, R.A., 2007. There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. HarperCollins e-books, p. 125.
- The Bible, New King James Version, 1982, Genesis 2:7.
- The Bible, New King James Version, 1982, John 1:1–4; John 14:6.
- Sanders, H.F. III, 2021. Synthetic Cell Attempt Failed Again. Answers in Genesis. Available at: https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/synthetic-life/synthetic-cell-attempt-failed-again/.
© Source of main image: Canva.
The portal EvolutionOfThinking.org, created by the Research and Education Institute, focuses on education and the dissemination of knowledge related to research on various aspects of human well-being.
