Panspermia —
The Theory that Life
came from Outer Space
DR JERRY BERGMAN
(Investigator #39, 1994 November)
ABSTRACT
In
debates about the creation-evolution controversy, many evolutionists allege
that the existing naturalistic origin of life theory is generally regarded as
highly possible. That these theories are in fact not tenable is shown by the
fact that many prominent evolutionists now hypothesize an alternate method.
Since the theistic world view is unacceptable, they thus assume a set of
conditions elsewhere in the solar system or the universe which are theorized to
be more favourable for the origin of life. The recognition that the conditions
on the earth are such that the origin of life is close to impossible forces
this approach if a naturalistic world view is maintained. Nowhere does the
literature reveal as vividly the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life
on the earth than in this area. The fact that an entirely hypothetical scenario
has been proposed which is supported by virtually no evidence and only, at
best, indirect inferences which can be interpreted us evidence, forces a review
of the theory of panspermia.
Much
science fiction has in time become science fact — journeying to the moon, for
example — and this should not surprise us. Many science fiction writers are
scientists by profession, or at least trained in science at the graduate level.
Isaac Asimov, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, is the best known example. Writing good
science fiction requires both a good grasp of science fact and a vivid
imagination. One of the latest science fictions which is now becoming
‘respectable' science theory is panspermia, the belief that the source of life
on earth was from other worlds. Although it enjoys an almost total lack of
empirical support, the reasons for the theory have a clear message for
creationists.
DID LIFE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?
Some
scientists, noting that the evidence is that the conditions on earth were never
favourable for the spontaneous generation of living molecules, have concluded
that life must have come from outside of our solar system. In the words of
Cowen:
'... Drs
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe in developing the concept of the cosmic cradle [have
based]...their theory partly on their own interpretation of the infrared
signatures of some space chemicals (and because] they reject Darwin's warm
shallow pond or Stanley Miller’s and Harold Urey‘s lightning-created chemical
mixtures as birthplaces of organic life. “The concept of primeval soup",
Dr Wickramasinghe remarked in an interview, "is just a confidence
trick which people have bought without much critical analysis. It would be too
diluted for anything to happen."'1
Ever
since Jules Verne's stories From the Earth
to the Moon (1865) and H.G. Wells, The
War of the Worlds (1898), then the popular Flash Gordon in the 1950s, and now Star Trek, Star Wars and
similar genre, many people have been fascinated with the possibility of life in
outer space. And in the 1980s, Carl Sagan’s acclaimed Cosmos has made, in the minds of much of the public at least, life
on other worlds a high probability.
Because
many eminent scientists have championed this theory, it has now achieved some
credibility in the science world. The two main types of panspermia genesis
are:—
1. Deliberate or Directed Panspermia, the view that the 'seeds of life' were deliberately brought to earth by beings from other planets; and
2. Accidental
Panspermia, the
position that simple forms of life were accidentally carried here by comets,
meteorites, or dust clouds which the earth had at one time passed through in
its orbit around the sun.
'Earth in orbit sweeps up some 16,000 tons of
interplanetary matter each year, much of it the remnants of decaying comets.
Are new life forms present in this stellar gift? Do viruses evolved in comets or
interstellar dust bring novel genes to influence earthly evolution? Did
earth's life itself evolve from these cosmic seedings?’2
Also as
Christian notes, due to the fact that hundreds of thousands of comets exist, ‘The
theory suggests that life may exist throughout the universe.’3
Among
those who advocate the theory that the origin of life is from outer space via
rocket ships, comets, or similar vehicles, or at least conclude that the theory
has merit, is Francis Crick. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize with James D.
Watson for unlocking the secret of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a substance
that had previously been identified as the master molecule of heredity. In
1953 he and his co-workers discovered the now famous double helix molecular
structure that carries the genetic code which makes up the blueprint that
directs the building of life. Their discovery spawned the now famous genetic
revolution, including gene splicing.4, 5
Other
scientists who feel that the panspermia view has merit include Leslie Orgel, a
researcher at California’s prestigious Salk Institute for Biological Studies;
Armand Delsemme, a University of Toledo astrophysicist; Joan Oro, professor of
biochemical and biophysical sciences at the University of Houston;
mathematician/astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe; Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the
most famous living astronomers; and Harvard astrophysicist Brian Marsden.6
Flindt
and Binder advocated a similar theory as did Von Daniken and Cohane.7-9 NASA
expert Maurice Chatelain even concludes that the only way to understand history
is to postulate some visitation from outer space which started what he concludes
was 'the sudden evolution' which rapidly produced humans. Fred Hoyle
and Chandra Wickramasinghe have written more about this than almost any other writers.
Their books include Lifecloud, Diseases From Space and Evolution From Space (all published by
Harper and Row).
Ginsburgh
even theorizes that the first humans in the biblical Garden of Eden actually
came in a spaceship which crash landed on earth about 6,000 years ago!11
THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA
The modern
idea of panspermia (which literally means 'seeds everywhere') was probably
originated by the nineteenth century Swedish chemist Sevante Arrhenius (1859-1927),
who concluded that life could not have begun on earth by itself. He thus
felt it must have been seeded by spores propelled by light-waves pushing them.
The British physicist Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) once argued that, ‘Seed-bearing
meteoritic stone from another world started life on earth.'12 Thomas Henry Huxley
was not only the 'great defender' of evolution, but of panspermia as well.
Today, many scientists are actively testing the theory in the laboratory.13
Directed panspermia, the notion that life is sent from a rocket, is
advocated by Crick, and accidental panspermia is proposed by Fred Hoyle. He
hypothesizes that life originated in space and migrated by chance to earth by
comets, meteorites, or even dust clouds.
THE REASON FOR THE THEORY
For
Crick and most other proponents, their motivations to develop the theory,
according to Jaroff, include the conclusion that existing abiogenesis theories
are untenable.
'A
decade ago the restless Crick ... began stalking the greatest secret of all:
the origin of life itself. Along with other biologists, Crick was troubled by
the prevailing explanations of how life began on earth. In 1973, he and Leslie
Orgel ... published an article in the journal, Icarus theorizing that life on Earth originated with
micro-organisms sent by rockets from another planet in our galaxy. They call this
act of deliberate seeding "directed panspermia".'14
Other
details on the reasons for the new theory are according to Johnson as follows:
'Assuming
away the difficult points is one way to solve an intractable problem; another
is to send the problem off into space. That was the strategy of one of the
world’s most famous scientists, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure
of DNA. Crick is thoroughly aware of the awesome complexity of cellular life
and the extreme difficulty of explaining how such life could have evolved in
the time available on earth. So he speculated that conditions might have been
more favorable on some distant planet.'15
Many
other researchers have also expressed much dissatisfaction with the prevailing
theories about how life originated on planet earth. They have concluded that,
given what we know about the environment necessary for life, it could never have
spontaneously generated here.16 They thus looked elsewhere in search
of an explanation. And in so doing, Adler concluded:
'Probing
the origins of life on earth, a biologist and an astronomer have performed the
improbable feat of reinventing religion. Conventional science has invoked the
workings of chemistry over almost limitless time to bring the order of life out
of the planet's primitive chaos. But life seems to have begun rather quickly:
the more scientists have looked, the further back they have found signs of
life; the earliest fossil cells, ... are almost as old as the solar system
itself. Pondering such mysteries Nobel Prize-winning biologist Francis Crick
and Sir Fred Hoyle, the distinguished astronomer, have independently supposed
a dues ex galaxia to explain the sudden appearance of life on earth: the
"seeding" of space by intelligent beings from distant corners of the
universe.'17
As we
might expect, Crick's book, Life Itself,
a Science Book of the Month Club
selection has received mixed reviews — many scientists were very favourable;
others, such as Niles Eldredge, were very critical. Eldredge called Crick's
book 'nothing short of a disaster', partly because as Eldredge states, 'Crick
develops his notion of "directed panspermia" unhampered by such
pedestrian considerations of testability.'18 Ironically,
Eldredge's main criticism of Crick's work seems to be his tendency to see
'... science as an alternative to religion
and [ his lashing] out at "antiscientific fanatics" who fail
to hearken to the clarion call of the twentieth century gurus of the West, the
enlightened scientists. ... Crick’s characterization of religion as an
amalgam of arcane, outmoded beliefs is intemperate in light of his own views on
how life came to exist on the planet earth.'19
The fact
that some of the greatest of the world’s foremast scientists disagree among
themselves on this topic illustrates how much we have yet to learn about our
world, especially about such questions as the origin of life. Nonetheless, as
Jaroff states:
'Coming
from a lesser man, directed panspermia might well be written off as science
fiction. But Crick is a giant among scientists, and his ideas are not taken
lightly. While he concedes the weaknesses in his theory and does not hesitate
to expound the strengths of others, he insists that directed panspermia is
built on a foundation of scientific detail... Crick allows that he has several
times sworn off further writing on the origin of life "because there is too much speculation
running after too few facts", but he confesses that "the subject is so fascinating that I
never seem to stick to my resolve."'20
Thus,
scientists are still arguing today over the views that Jules Verne and H.G.
Wells presented in their science fiction, and scientists today do not seem to
have all that much more of an advantage in arriving at a conclusion as to their
validity. We are still ‘running after too few facts', yet, as Adler
observed:
'Crick
and Hoyle may have the most far-out hypothesis, but they are not alone in
asking whether life on earth was made possible — or at least influenced — by objects from the far reaches of
the solar system. Astrophysicist Armand Delsemme ... believes that the
stuff of living things — including hydrogen, carbon and oxygen — came from
comets, which brought gas and organic material to lifeless, airless earth' 21
Frank
points out that there is evidence that every minute about 2,100 small comets
consisting primarily of water and ice dump water on the earth.22 If
the evidence proves valid, our lakes and oceans must have been formed
relatively recently, which poses serious problems for all existing naturalistic
origin of life theories. The implications for the current naturalistic origin
of life scenario is obvious; without large quantities of water, most theories
break down. Frank thus realizes that some type of panspermia is the only
saviour of atheistic abiogenesis. An exogenesis is also argued for on the
grounds that many of the biochemicals necessary for life could not have formed
here, and thus must have had their origin elsewhere. Frank states that consequently
many scientists
'now
believe that much of the organic molecules needed to create the first forms of
life on earth could well have been brought in by comets that bombarded the
planet early in its history.' 23
He
then cites the work of a number of researchers who conclude that
'a cometary
bombardment could have brought in a hundred to a thousand times as much organic
material as the earth itself would have produced photochemically during the
same period.' 24
And, the
oxygen problem is likewise solved, since
'...it
may be that these small comets provided not only the chemical seeds for life on
earth, but the oxygen to protect it from the sun, as well as the marine
incubator — the ocean — in which it could grow and thrive. That, in essence,
would make us all the children of comets.' 25
The
tentative terminology used here is appropriate in that there is no evidence
that comets were historically the source of the large amounts of organic
molecules or oxygen we now have, only controversial evidence that small comets
today are bringing in vast quantities of water from outer space.
OBJECTIONS TO PANSPERMIA
The
problem most often pointed out by critics is that we simply have no direct
evidence that any form of natural panspermia has ever actually occurred. It
presumes both that life exists on other planets and that, given the right
conditions, life is able to spontaneously generate itself there. The whole
theory, as many of its critics point out, is almost purely speculation.
The main
objection to directed panspermia is that it moves the problem of the origin of
life to another planet or place by relocating unanswered questions.26
As Christian notes, pushing 'the problem light-years away to some unknown
location' does not solve the question of naturalistic origins.27
Other problems include the likelihood of life that evolved elsewhere being compatible
with our environment, and the difficulty of anything living traveling for
millions and millions of years in the environment of space which is extremely
hostile to life and still being viable. Another concern is that radiation in
space may well destroy most life, or even life’s seeds, during its journey. As
Johnson notes, panspermia
‘...leaves
the problem of getting life from the planet of origin to earth. First in a
paper with Leslie Orgel and then in a book of his own, Crick advanced a theory
he called "directed panspermia". The basic idea is that an
advanced extraterrestrial civilization, possibly facing extinction, sent
primitive life forms to earth in a spaceship. The spaceship builders couldn’t
come themselves be cause of the enormous time required for interstellar travel;
so they sent bacteria capable of surviving the voyage and the severe conditions
that would have greeted them upon arrival on the early earth.' 28
Yet
another concern is how did the spores break away from the gravity at their home
base and travel into space — no easy task, as our space program engineers are
keenly aware.29 Crick does an admirable job attempting to explain
many of these difficulties, but falls far short, leaving most of the major
objections unanswered. Many of these objections were recognized long ago.
Wells summarized the problem a full half-century ago as follows:
'The
actual on gin of life must always remain a secret: even if man succeeds in
artificially making life, he can never be sure that Nature did not employ some
other means. Some thinkers have supposed that life was carried to this earth in
a dormant state within meteorites. But this is to think timorously and to balk
the issue; it only removes the problem of life's origin one step farther back.
It does not absolve us from asking how and when life originated, but merely introduces
an extra difficulty.' 30
THE THEORY'S IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY
The
theory clearly emphasizes the fact that serious difficulties exist with the
assumption that life spontaneously originated at some point in time long ago
in some primordial soup somewhere on the surface of earth. The literature on
the various theories of how the spontaneous generation of life on earth could
have occurred eons ago is based on the a priori assumption that, since
life is clearly here, and it is not 'scientific' to resort to a creator to
guide the process, we therefore must speculate on how life could have been
spontaneously generated. That scientists of the stature of Hoyle, Crick,
Ginsburgh and Wickramasinghe seriously question the assumption that life could
have originated on earth without outside direction clearly indicates serious
difficulties are present in all of the current origin of life theories.31,
32
One
primary method exists to test the theory. In contrast to the belief of most
scientists that life formed out of the earth's early atmosphere, Hoyle and
others speculate that the first living cells which gave rise to life on earth
formed in space about 4.6 billion years ago. Further, Hoyle concluded, as
discussed in his book, Diseases from
Outer Space, that this influx of life from outer space (mainly via comets)
still occurs today. As evidence for this, Hoyle notes that smallpox and other
diseases tend to occur and disappear at 'mysterious intervals' throughout
history.
Some
scientists have even speculated that each return of some comet could herald
disaster because of the germs and other life that they believe it carries, a
theory not supported by the research completed on the 1986 return of Halley's
comet. Given this theory, it is feasible to empirically determine whether or
not the visit of a comet brings disease or complex organic matter of any kind
aside from aminoacids. For a control, satellites or high flying airplanes could
be used to accurately evaluate the contents in a certain area of space. Then,
when a comet makes a close enough appearance (Halley passed by the earth in
1986, and this can be accurately calculated) a germ count of the same area
again can be taken. If it increases significantly, and if this increase cannot
be accounted for by other causes, the results would indicate that the comet was
carrying germs, or some type of organic molecules.
A
spacecraft was sent to Halley's comet to determine, among other things, if it
contained organic molecules, or germs. The results found no evidence that
comets or other bodies carried germs or life of any type. So far, only simple
'organic' compounds have been identified in Halley's comet from infrared
detectors in telescopes on earth. Wickramasinghe and Allen used this equipment
to measure waves given out by the comet beyond the visible light spectrum. They
found a 3.4 micron wavelength, which indicates some hydrogen-carbon molecules are
present in the space visitor's body. This compound, though, while organic is a
long way from life, actually about as far as a bucket of bolts is from a
Ferrari.31, 34
Labeling
something an organic compound implies it is a 'living organism', or something
close to it, but an organic chemical is actually nothing more than a compound
that contains carbon and hydrogen.35 Carbon is an element that
combines with many others — actually most compounds are carbon based; over
10,000,000 are organic compared to only about 1,000,000 non-organic types. Iron
is necessary for higher life, yet the discovery of iron on a planet would
hardly prove that life was close to formation there. As Adler summarizes Hoyle's
current ideas:
'... in
his 1978 book, Lifecloud, he
suggested that primitive living cells originated in comets and were
"seeded" on earth early in its history. In Lifecloud he also pointed out that earthly organisms are strangely
out of tune with conditions in the rest of our solar system; the
wavelengths of light that chlorophyll uses most efficiently, for example, are
not these in which the sun's spectrum is concentrated. Such speculation ... has
led Hoyle to exactly the view that seemed self-evident in the Middle Ages: that
life did not arise spontaneously on earth. According to this theory, the
origins of life are inherently unknowable, or at best a problem for the
scientists [who live] far out in space where it did arise.' 36
This new
field, called astrochemistry, has grown so much that
'the fact
that Drs Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are willing to stake their professional
reputations on these audacious theories, shows how fast the young science of
astrochemistry is developing.' 37
CONCLUSION
The
ability of a spore to survive during a trip from outer space to earth has now
been researched by many respectable scientists. The most optimistic are Leiden
and Greenberg who conclude that:
'While
"naked" spores had a life expectancy of only 150 years in space, at
least 10 percent of those with molecular shields could last up to 45 million
years — more than
long enough to survive an interstellar journey.' 38
The
spores used in this research, though, were the highly developed Bacillus
subtilis, a hardy bacterium which, as any sanitationist knows, is like some
of its cousins, very difficult to kill. Further, to be able to produce a set of
events in controlled laboratory conditions says only what is possible, not
what actually has historically occurred. No one is denying the contributions of
this experiment, and in no way are we discouraging such research, but it speaks
far more for over design than a theistic evolution, and illustrates how far
humans will go to deny a designer to explain design.
The
issue of directed or accidental panspermia, and the speculation it is based
upon, helps us to understand how little is actually known about the origin of
life. Outsiders should be cautious and not uncritically accept the many
speculations put forth by contemporary scientists and their students. This also
illustrates the extremes to which scientists will go to explain the complex
reality around us without a creator.
REFERENCES
1. Cowen, R, 1978, The cosmic cradle. Technology Review, 80(5):6.
2. Cowen, Ref.1, p.6.
3. Christian, J.L, 1986. Philosophy; An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, Halt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, p.364.
4. Lear, J., 1978. Recombinant DNA; The Untold Story, Crown Publishers, Inc., New
York.
5. Watson, J.D., 1968. The Double helix; A Personal Account of the
Discovery of the Structure of DNA, Atheneum, New York.
6. Cowen, Ref. 1.
7. Flindt, M. and Binder, O., 1974. Mankind, Child of the Stars, Fawcett Publishers,
Greenwich. Connecticut.
8. Von Daniken, E., 1969. Chariots of the Gods, G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York.
9. Cohane, J. P., 1977. Paradox: The Case of the Extraterrestrial Origin of Man, Crown
Publishers, New York.
10. Chatelain, M., 1978. Our Ancestors Came Front Outer Space, Garden City, New York.
11. Ginsburgh, I., 1975. First, Man, Then Adam!, Simon and Schuster, New York.
12. Brush, S., 1982. Kelvin war not a creationist.
Creation-Evolution, 8:12.
13. Lawren, B., 1986. Panspermia update. Omni, February, p. 32.
14. Jaroff, L, 1981. Francis Crick: the seeds of life. Discover, 2(10):62.
15. Johnson, P.E., 1991. Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Washington D.C., p. 108.
16. Thaxton, C., Bradley, W.L. and Olsen, R., 1984.
The Mystery of Life’s Origin,
Philosophical Library, New York.
17. Adler, J.1982. A life-giving comet? Newsweek, March 1, p.55.
18. Eldredge, N., 1981. Life from outer space, Science 81, 2(8):94.
19. Eldredge, Ref. 18, p.94.
20. Jaroff, Ref. 14, p. 62.
21. Adler, Ref. 17, p. 55.
22. Frank, L.A. with Huyghe, P., 1990. The Big Splash; A scientific discovery that
revolutionizes the way we view the origin of life, the water we drink, the
death of the dinosaurs, the creation of the oceans, the nature of the cosmos,
and the very future of the earth itself, Carol Publishing Group, New York.
23. Frank, Ref. 22, p.56.
24. Frank, Ref. 22, p.56.
25. Frank,
Ref.22, p.57.
26. Wysong, R., 1976. The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, East Lansing,
Michigan.
27. Christian, Ref. 3, p. 364.
28. Johnson, Ref. 15, p. 108.
29. Lawren, Ref. 13, p. 32.
30. Wells, H.G., Huxley, J. and Wells, G.P.,
1935. The History and Adventure of Life,
Cassel, London, p.8.
31. Thaxton et al., Ref. 16.
32. Johnson,
Ref. 15.
33. Sandilands, B., 1986. Halley discovery poses
question: Did comets bring seeds of life? The
Sydney Morning Herald, April 3, p.2.
34. Sandilands, B., 1986. We may be descended from
a comet. The Sydney Morning Herald,
April 4, p. 13.
35. Dorin, H., 1984, Unified Chemistry, Cebco Standard Publishing, Fairfield, New
Jersey.
36. Adler, Ref. 17, p. 55.
37. Cowen. Ref. 1, p.6.
38. Lawren, Ref. 13, p. 32.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crick, F.,
1981. Life Itself, Its Origins and
Nature, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Cock, F.
and Orgel, L, 1973. Directed panspermia. Icarus,
19;341-354. Hoyle, F., 1979. Diseases
from Space, Harper and Row, New York.
Hoyle, F.,
1981. Evolution From Space A theory of
Cosmic Creationism, Harper & Row, New York
Hoyle, F.,
1983. The Intelligent Universe; A New
View of Creation and Evolution, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Hoyle, F.,
1984. From Grains to Bacteria,
University College Cardiff Press, Great Britain.
Hoyle, F.
and Wickramasinghe, C., 1987. LifeCloud;
the Origin of Life In the Universe, Harper & Row, New York.