An A to Z of Creationist Fallacies: A is for Abiogenesis

4,1 bn year old biogenic carbon?
Do we come from a land down-under?

One of the most common fallacies voiced by creationists is that you cannot get life from non-life, and that evolution cannot explain how life began. And know what? They are absolutely correct. I could not agree more, nor could anyone who is involved or even has the slightest interest in evolutionary biology.

But before the creationists get too smug, the simple fact is that the science of evolutionary biology does not only not seek to explain the origins of life, it does not actually cover that field. Evolution covers only the adaptation of lifeforms over time, and how life came about on this planet is a complete irrelevance to the subject.

Berkeley University defines evolutionary biology, or biological evolution as they call it (trust the Americans to be ornery) thus;

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

Got that? The descent of different species from a common ancestor. Nowhere does it seek to explain where the original common ancestor came from. A simple synonym for 'evolution' is 'change'.

When creationists and others speak of the origins of life from non-living matter, they are not talking about evolution, they are talking of abiogenesis. It was Cornish physiologist Henry Charlton Bastian (1837-1875) who coined the word biogenesis, which he defined of the rise of life from non-life, which he claimed to have witnessed. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) however, chose the more grammatically correct term 'abiogenesis' for such (that 'a' in front makes all the difference) and redefined biogenesis to mean lifeforms evolving from early living organisms.

The most widely accepted model of abiogenesis is that of the “primordial soup” of the early Earth. This postulates that around 3.8 billion years ago, certain chemicals abounding on the planet in an oxygenless atmosphere could have been reduced by sunlight to create simple organic molecules, from which all life has evolved.

Using this hypothesis, in 1952 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of the University of Chicago carried out an experiment mixing chemicals believed to have been present in the early Earth. These were water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which were sealed in a sterile 5 litre flask, which in turn was connected to a smaller flask. Water in the smaller flask was heated to create evaporation, and the chemicals were bombarded with electrical sparks, replicating lightning. After only one week amino acids, the very building blocks of life, were found in the compound. Creationists are quick to point out that the Miller-Urey experiment produced only left-handed amino acids. That however was only after the initial findings. The experiment, which is still ongoing, has since produced both left and right-handed molecules, as have other similar experiments. After Stanley Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining the vials from the original experiment found in excess of 20 amino acids, many more than the original findings, and more than the 20 required for life.

Another hypothesis is that of panspermia; that the early Earth was seeded with life from outer space. One of the greatest mysteries surrounding the origins of life on Earth is just how sudden it occurred, and panspermia postulates that shards of comets and asteroids carrying microbial life could have smashed into the earth (this ties in with the known heavy bombardment the early Earth received from space), spreading life, which flourished in conditions perfect for it to do so. The panspermia hypothesis suggests that the biochemistry of life could have taken place in space in a 'habitable epoch', 10-17 million years ago, and carried life throughout the universe. The implications of this are enormous, for if it were correct, then while our planet is the only place known to host living beings, panspermia suggests that life may in fact be common throughout the entire universe – another huge headache for the creationist.

Another possibility is that life hitched here from another planet. This is not as absurd as it sounds. Consider the meteorite found in Alaska in 1984, ALH84001, which may have come from Mars and which appears to have microscopic fossils of bacteria. When mankind does go to Mars, those who are lucky enough may well be 'going home' for all we know. Consider also that we owe every molecule in our bodies to outer space, and the atoms in our left hand may come from a different exploding star in our right hand. The late, great Carl Sagan was right; we ARE star stuff. Or as Sam Neill put it in the BBC documentary space, “If anyone asks where you come from, tell them outer space – formed in the heart of an exploding star.”

The earliest – undisputed – life on Earth occurred in the Eoarchean Era, some 3.5 billion years ago, after a geological crust formed after the earlier Haldean Eon, when the proto-Earth was still in a molten state. Microbial mat fossils have been found in yellow sandstone in Western Australia, dated 3.48 billion years old, 3.7 billion year old graphite in metasedimentary rock in Greenland has revealed physical evidence of a biogenic substance, and pushing the boundary even further back, biogenic carbon may have been found in zircon from Western Australia, dated at an astonishing 4.1 billion years old (Strewth mate! Look's like we may all be Aussies).

I have heard many creationists mocking and ridiculing the findings of these remnants of early life, as well as scoffing at both the primordial soup and panspermia hypotheses, using language like “absurd”, “nonsensical”, “fantasy” and “impossible”.

Life rising from inorganic material is absurd, nonsensical, fantasy and impossible, is it? Hmm.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7, KJV)

Seems some creationists should be very careful of what they say.

But of course, some creationists are mistaken about what they think abiogenesis means, and others, whom have had it explained to them time and time again, are just outright dishonest about it. It does not mean getting “a dog from a rock” (what is this creationist obsession with dogs?) as I have heard more than one put it. Creationists who claim that abiogenesis means modern living beings magically appearing from rocks - or that evolution claims to explain the origins of life - are not merely dishonest, they are shysters and charlatans, willing to lie if the end justifies the means. When they do so however, they are bearing false witness, which is breaking the Ninth Commandment and thereby blaspheming their own faith, as well as doing the Christian faith a gross disservice. I could add that they dishonour themselves into the bargain, but I reckon anyone who behaves in that manner has no honour in the first place.

Similarly some will note that all I have written above about the origins of life are hypothetical; they are not scientific theories, they are not facts. LIfe could have originated from the primordial soup, it could have been through panspermia, and – although I sincerely doubt it – life may even have been started by some deity. The simple fact is that there is only one honest, truthful, accurate, and honourable three word answer to the question of how life began, and that is “I don't know.” Anyone who says any otherwise is not being honest, truthful, accurate, nor honourable towards others or to themselves for that matter.

And creationists, just because science cannot (yet) explain how life came about does not mean your God wins by default. Do not point me to your book of Bronze Age goat herders campfire tales, for that is not evidence, it is the claim, we don't know who wrote those claims, and the entire book has already been proven to be grossly inaccurate.

There is no shame in saying “I don't know.”, neither is it an unintelligent answer. Sometimes it is the only answer we can give to that which surpasses understanding. The big difference is that where the scientific community does not know or understand something, they work on that passionately day and night to try to find the answers, or at the least a greater understanding.

The one thing science does not do when faced with an unknown is to automatically assume, claim and dogmatically assert “God did it.” To make such claims is indeed unintelligent to the point of foolishness, and exhibits exactly the same level of logic and understanding as our early ancestors who saw a volcanic eruption and said “The Mountain Gods are angry.”