What is "Life" anyway?

In my last post, I proposed that we need to re-examine how life emerged from non-life some time in the past. But what do we mean "life"? What trait distinguishes the living from the non-living? If we are going to investigate how life emerged, we need to understand what it is we are investigating. Despite the broad use of the terms and apparent self-evidence of a definition of "living", it is, in fact, very difficult to state with scientific rigor a definition that does not bring with it, some presupposition about the nature of living things.

In the past, something was only considered to be alive, if it was able to move on its own. This eliminated the entire plant word from consideration. In a similar vein, respiration, the consumption of food and production of waste, seem ill adapted, as this eliminates viruses, which are arguably, one of the most virulent forms of life on the planet.

I propose a very simple definition: "A system is considered to be a living system, if in the general case, members of the system class possess the ability to produce another distinct living system." Despite the obvious self referential nature of this definition, it is the very reproductive capability of life that makes it unique. All other chemical processes pale in comparison to the process by which one living thing creates another distinct version of itself.

The definition makes a few very important distinctions. First, the general case for a class of systems (individuals sharing a set of traits) is key to whether or not a system can be considered living. If the normal state of members of the class is the ability to reproduce, then an individual within the class which cannot reproduce may be considered living by virtue of its membership in the class.

Second, no requirement exists for a living system to produce a copy of itself or even of a system similar to itself. All that is required is that the system produce another system capable of producing another system. In this way, both evolutionary and species stable models of life's origins can be considered.

Lastly, this definition implies nothing about the source of the system. Whether the system was produced by naturally occurring means, or as the result of intelligent, directed efforts (e.g., man-made), it has no bearing on consideration whether the system is living. Some may believe that this omission invalidates the definition, but I would argue that understanding living systems that are designed is critical to understanding living systems that exists apparently without a designer.

Why does science need to be "Redeemed"

Redeeming Science for Christ may be considered by some to be a fool's errand and by others to be incredibly presumptious. But I think there is a dearth of voices urging the Christian and scientific communities to work together instead of against one another. Too many commentators today spend more time attacking each other's philosophical motivation than they do studying a theory's scientific merit. By "Redeeming Science for Christ", I hope to reengage Christians and the "mainstream" scientific community. I have no utopian illusion of a world where disagreements disappear, but I believe we can have reasonable discussions about Theories of Origins that focus on the scientific merits of the research and conclusions, not on the possible motivations of the researchers. We need to increase the interaction between Christian and non-Christian researchers in these fields.

If we are going to make this kind of discussion possible, the people on both sides of the argument are going to have to take make some changes. Everyone who endeavors to find evidence of how the universe, life or humans came to be must conduct their research with the highest degree of integrity and scientific rigor. The data must be presented in whole, not in part and conclusions must be open to review and skepticism. Christians, especially, must be above reproach in their research. Not because of the world's reaction to our theories, but because we serve a God who demands the best in every thing we do.

We must also learn to respect one another despite our different faiths or philosophies. Christians are not theocrats who want to return our schools and governments to the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance. By the same token, "Scientists" are not members of an evil society dedicated to the eradication of judeo-christian morality from the world. The sooner we all realize this, the sooner we can get on with what we have in common which is an honest, abiding desire to know and understand where we came from.

Finally, we need to be prepared for information that doesn't fit our world view. Christians must be willing to thoughtfully and honestly consider scientific evidence that contradicts their biblical faith. Galileo challenged the church's view and they feared his discovery would depose the authority of the church on scientific matters. By opposing Galileo, the Church deposed themselves. Now, hundreds of years later, the heliocentric view of the solar system is accepted science, and Christians find no contradiction to it in the Bible. When Christians embrace scientific theories that contradict their faith by examining and seeking to understand them, they open the possibility of bringing science to a different conclusion rather than removing themselves from the discussion altogether.

Non-christians need to accept that some things are beyond scientific proof, but are just as real as any experiment or observed phenomena. Hitler's Aryan super-race was a direct descendent of the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin. The outrage and disgust felt by the world when the holocaust was exposed were as real as the atrocities themselves and come from a moral understanding of the value of all life; concepts which are outside of the ability of science to prove. If science claims unverifiable things are not real, then it stands in league with Hitler and justifies mass murder in the name of a theory of speciation. But I have yet to meet a scientist today who fails to recognize that Hitler's Holocaust was morally corrupt and completely reprehensible.

We need to recognize that we disagree and change the tone from a vicious debate to a reasonable discussion. Who knows, maybe if we scientists from both sides of the argument work together their differing viewpoints may catalyse into an insight that alone neither would have achieved.