CHCH News-Faith, Science, and Abiogenesis

One of the definitions of faith is as follows: a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Christians understand this intuitively, and many scientists point out that this is the primary problem with Christianity. That would be well and good if some proponents of biological theories applied the same standard to ideas for which they are apologists.

Specifically, I’m speaking of the theory of abiogenesis. The abiogenesis theory asserts that living organisms originated from non-living organisms, that somehow, life spontaneously sprang from a “primordial soup” which existed on this planet shortly after it was formed. I’m willing to accept this hypothesis, but on faith, not on science. Hopefully, by the conclusion of this article, you will understand why.

To get to the heart of the matter, a cursory explanation of organic chemistry is required. I will keep it as brief as I can, but I think that you must understand the nature of what I am saying, not simply take my word as an article of faith.

When he was young, Louis Pasteur discovered a physical principle of certain chemicals that is known in organic chemistry as “optical activity”. Pasteur observed that when he dehydrated certain solutions of chemicals, crystals formed. What he noticed, though, was that some of these chemicals dehydrated into two different kinds of crystals, and that the crystals were mirror images of each other. Imagine holding your hand sideways up to a mirror, then sliding the image out and trying to superimpose it over your real hand. You would observe that the image of the thumb was sitting atop your pinky finger, and that the image of your pinky was sitting atop your real thumb. If you can’t see it in your mind’s eye, please actually go to a mirror and do it because it is of critical importance to understanding the direction of this essay.

This property is known as “enantiomerism”, and the two chemicals are said to be enantiomers of each other. An enantiomer is simply a special kind of isomer. Isomers are different chemicals that have the exact same chemical formula. For example, C3H7Cl has two isomers: 1-chloropropane and 2-chloropropane. Incidentally, 1-chloropropane has an enantiomer, and 2-chloropropane does not.

Pasteur’s curiosity was piqued at this point, so he decided to experiment on what properties these two mirror images had in common, and what properties made them different. One of the experiments he performed measured how light was affected when it was passed through a solution that contained one or the other of these two dissolved chemicals.

First, he established a light source, then placed a polarizing filter that permitted only vertical light waves to pass through between the light source and the solution. Next, he put another polarizing filter on the far side of the container that held the solution. What he observed with these chemicals was that when he passed a light through the first polarizing filter, through the chemical solution (in a glass container), and then through the second polarizing filter, that one chemical would rotate the vertical beam of light X degrees to the right of vertical, but the other chemical would rotate the light X degrees to the left of vertical. Remember, we’re talking about the EXACT same chemicals except for the fact that one forms a “left-handed” crystal when dehydrated, and the other forms a “right-handed” crystal when dehydrated.

Then, he made a solution out of equal parts of both the left- and right-handed crystals. Predictably, the light that vertically entered the solution exited the second filter vertically as well. Clearly, the two chemicals canceled out the optical activity of each other. This property is known as racemization (more accurately, we are said to have a racemic mixture of the enantiomer pair).

One of the most important enantiomer pairs in biochemistry and organic chemistry is Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). One of the curious features of DNA is the fact that when it is extracted from a living organism, it is optically inactive – that is to say that there are equal portions of both the left- and right-handed enantiomer pairs of DNA. When DNA is extracted from non-living things, only one of the enantiomer pairs is present, and nobody is certain why, or what happened to the other enantiomer.

Back to Pasteur for a moment. One thing that Pasteur was unable to do, no matter how hard he tried, was to produce a racemic mixture from only one of the enantiomers. In order to produce that optically inactive mixture of these chemicals, he needed to start with both of the optically active chemicals. It has been over 200 years since Pasteur attempted this reaction, and we still cannot synthesize an optically inactive mixture if we do not begin with optically active ingredients that have rotations that are opposite of each other.

The conundrum that abiogenesis apologists find themselves in is the fact that to date, there is no scientifically sound explanation for how life may have arisen from non-living matter. In fact, to assume, based upon the science that we do know, that life could have arisen from the non-living is to derive a logical contradiction.

I concede that we may eventually discover how to synthesize these racemic mixtures using only one optically active starting material, but at present, we simply do not know how to do it. In short, to believe that abiogenesis is possible, one must have a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I don’t think that this is necessarily a bad thing, but we all need to recognize it for what it is, and most especially what it isn’t. Namely, it is unscientific to “believe” in abiogenesis. In purely rational terms, abiogenesis is either true, or it isn’t true. At present, there is no evidence to support it as being true.

By extension, then, this gives rise to shortcomings in evolutionary theory as well, as evolutionary theory seems to depend upon abiogenesis being true. Since I have demonstrated that with what we now know that abiogenesis cannot be true, the prevailing opinion of evolutionary theory cannot be true either.

Bear in mind that I am not advocating a creationist position, merely demonstrating that belief in abiogenesis and evolution requires the same degree of faith that believing in creation theory does.

Just remember this the next time you hear someone expounding upon abiogenesis/evolution. Science may well prove these theories correct eventually, but in the mean time, don’t let them chastise you for your faith.

Zim
5/14/2004
Copyright© Zim/CHCH News. Free use with attribution