The Origin of Life - A Scientific or Philosophical Debate?

I'm currently reading the book, "Origins of Life" by Dr Fazale Rana and Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Early in the book Dr Rana traces the various theories that have been considered throughout history concerning the origin of life. It fascinates me that some of the most prominent scientific minds have presented some of the most unscientific explanations. With the near impossibility of defending the theoretical position of life coming from non-life some have made up very interesting arguments. One of my favorites is Directed Panspermia which credits alien life for seeding the earth. Very interesting...

So that makes me think a little.... When we argue about the origin of life aren't we stepping outside of the realm of science and entering the realm of philosophy? It's impossible to observe and impossible to test life's origin so it cannot be evaluated using The Scientific Method. Hence, this debate really does come down to the simple question; "What do you believe?" Once we establish what we believe we may then use any observable evidence to strengthen or weaken our belief. Now let's use some brain power.

Excerpt From Faith Science;

Here are three crucial quotes from the Chicago Tribune article “Fermilab Test Throws off More Matter than Antimatter and this Matters” on May 29, 2010. I cited it earlier as the number-three headline that followed the D-Zero Collaboration announcement. It highlights comments made by Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at FERMILAB.

“It’s like looking back to the instant where everything began,” said Joseph Lykken.

The question of existence is something that humans have wondered about ever since there were humans to wonder: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” as the seventeenthcentury philosopher Gottfried Leibniz put it.

This discovery someday could have practical spinoffs, but it could have immediate implications, among them is the clamorous intersection of politics and religion. Lykken hypothesized that proponents of “intelligent design” could seize upon the new findings to further support their argument that the laws of nature are so fine-tuned, they must be the handiwork of a creator.

—Fermilab Test Throws off More Matter than Antimatter and this Matters—Particle collision thought to replicate Big Bang forces, may help explain how things exist by Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune, May 29, 2010

So what did they expect to happen? Is it by chance that ultra highspeed collisions support the notion of super symmetry resulting in consistently more matter than antimatter? Could this process have simply replicated itself to result in the highly detailed physical realm in existence today?

It’s actually much more challenging to believe that there is no Creator than to believe that there is. With each new discovery, scientists find answers that result in more questions. This perpetual process of experimental analysis will continue until the truth is accepted.

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.

Romans 1:18–23 nlt

One of the worst decisions a Christian can ever make is to get into an argument with atheists or agnostics about the Theory of Origins. Even if they are presented with the conclusions of respectable scientists, they will not listen. They know the truth in their hearts and cannot deny the impossibility of chance in proven scientific processes like CP violation. It’s not supposed to happen that way; that is, unless it was really supposed to happen that way. Why is it so hard to believe there’s more to our existence than random scientific reactions? The truth is not always hard to believe, but most times it’s hard to accept.

In the Chicago Tribune article cited earlier in this chapter, Ron Grossman said:

One of physic’s foundation stones is the concept of a symmetrical universe. Everything has its mirror opposite, like humans’ left and right hands. As schoolchildren learn, Newton said every action has an equal and opposite reaction. “A good example is the Big Bang,” Lykken said, putting his colleague’s discovery into context. “The universe began as a perfectly symmetrical object, a ball of energy.” The problem lies in what happened next. That energy condensed into matter but also its opposite, antimatter. The two being mutually destructive, they should have canceled each other out. Instead, Lykken noted, matter joined together in ever larger concentrations—nuclei, atoms, stars, galaxies.

Fermilab test throws off more matter than antimatter and this matters—Particle collision thought to replicate Big Bang forces, may help explain how things exist by Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune, May 29, 2010

An atheist could probably continue the quote with, “ … water, trees, humans, dogs, etc.” Once again, let’s take a look at Romans 1:23: “Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.” Those who argue on the side of chance claim to be wise. Why does anything exist? Their wise answer is “the Big Bang.” Why are humans developed beyond the rest of the animal kingdom? Their wise answer is “evolution.” What will happen when they die? Their wise answer is “nothing.” The more we discover about our existence, the more we need to discover. The search for truth cannot end if those who are searching don’t intend to accept it.

When times get bad, people cry out for help. They cry for relief from being kicked around, But never give God a thought when things go well, when God puts spontaneous songs in their hearts, When God sets out the entire creation as a science classroom, using birds and beasts to teach wisdom.

Job 35:9–11 msg

God is our science teacher, and the universe is his classroom. This probably explains why several scientists and writers for scientific publications are quick to mention God after major scientific breakthroughs. Why don’t they say that the experimental results prove that there is no God and there was no creation? Isn’t that supposed to be the goal of many of these educated theorists?

They come up with complicated explanations for life’s intricate details while God uses birds and beasts to teach wisdom. Then they see experimental data that points them to God and they struggle to accept it. The good news is that God knows how to trigger a response out of even the most stubborn hearts.