Grasping at Straws

Yesterday we spoke of attempts to propose a naturalistic mechanism by which early proto-biochemicals might have come about. The harsh reality of the matter is that geologists now strongly doubt the early atmosphere had the composition required by the model that reigned in the 20th century. Biochemists now believe that the putative prebiotic soup would have been chemically unstable and could not have existed in the form proposed. But even if the right chemicals were at one point congregated in a concentrated environment, how do we get from that condition to life? There is simply no evidence that concentrations of amino acids and nucleic acids will spontaneously organize and interact. Astronomer Fred Hoyle once famously remarked that this was somewhat akin to a tornado running through a junkyard constructing a working jetliner.

DNA, RNA, and the myriads of necessary proteins are interdependent. No convincing explanation has ever accounted for life starting with these materials independently. Some have advocated a "naked gene" composed of RNA; others champion the proteins; others have touted an initial inorganic organization formed from clay crystals acting as a template upon which organic molecules organizes themselves and then "took over." A lot of effort has gone into creating laboratory and computer models, but so far all these offer is insight into how a designer might have worked.

Although subsequently explained away by embarrassed colleagues, the quandary of the molecular origin of life has provoked wild speculation on the part of some very famous people, to the degree that some have advocated the idea that aliens seeded the earth with life. What are we to make of a science that has come to this end? It simply refuses to admit the bankruptcy of its basic assumptions. Faced with the irreducible complexity of life and the appearance of design, its acolytes invariably look the other way. Why? That's our next topic.