The Washington Post has an interesting article about origin of life researcher Robert Hazin. Among other things, the writer of the article says:
There is a tendency to think of science as a series of established facts and consensual theories -- "a bunch of things we know, to be memorized," in the words of Robert Hazen, the science popularizer and researcher into the origin of life.
What Hazen will tell you is that science is actually a very human enterprise. It's full of unknowns and uncertainties, of raging controversies, of passions and prejudices. Of all the great unknowns, the origin of life is particularly daunting. Direct evidence of the origin is essentially nonexistent: It happened too long ago, in too subtle a way. There's no fossil of the First Microbe. If there were, some skeptical scientist would surely raise a ruckus, saying: That's just a blob of mud.
The field has attracted people with strong personalities. They argue. They grumble. They snipe. Their debates are much more intense, and more grounded in the rules of science, than the much-hyped debate about evolution and intelligent design.
They are wrestling with basic questions: What is life, exactly? Does it always require liquid water and those long Tinkertoy carbon molecules? Does life require a cell? Did life begin with a hereditary molecule or with some kind of metabolic chemical reaction? Where did life begin on Earth? Was there a single moment that could be described as the "origin of life," or did life sort of creep into existence gradually?
All that is very much in play. In the words of George Cody, an origin-of-life researcher, "No one knows anything about the origin of life...."
Now you can see how all this might get a bit delicate given the current debate about intelligent design. Hazen knows that by exposing the backstage bickering on the origin of life, he may give ammunition to the critics of the scientific community: "Anything I say that shows any uncertainty or doubt, they will use as evidence that scientists are baffled."
No wonder. The article sure makes them sound baffled.
He believes that the universe is hard-wired for the emergence of life. "Emergence" is his buzzword, much more than "evolution." What he sees is inevitable progress from the simplest elements to more complex chemistry, then to life, then to consciousness, and finally to creatures who can comprehend the cosmos. "And if that isn't meaning and purpose, I don't know what is."
This all raises a number of questions. For one, how did the universe get "hard-wired for life"? And if it is, what is it about the universe that makes Hazen think that it is? If the universe shows evidence of being the sort of place that is finely-tuned for the emergence of life, if the laws and field strengths, etc. of physics are such that conscious life is inevitable, then what is the difference between what Hazen believes and what the intelligent design people are saying? Does Hazen believe that cosmic fine-tuning is just a coincidence? If so, then why would he think the universe has "meaning and purpose"? If he thinks that the universe is deliberately "front-loaded" to give rise to conscious life then he's deluding himself if he thinks he's somehow staking out a position contrary to intelligent design.
One of the peculiarities of the intelligent design controversy is that many of the scientists and philosophers who try to distance themselves from ID adopt views the logic of which leads them right back to it.
Thanks to Telic Thoughts for the tip.
