While humanity has gained the ability to study physiological phenomena ranging from quantum mechanics to the gapingly cosmic frontiers of space, one somewhat everyday occurrence still remains mystical in its perplexity. Although, the question, “How did life begin?” may initially seem like a somewhat sophomoric musing of philosophers, the its answer is of dire importance, for it colors both cause and meaning of all organic existence. To illustrate, favoring a nihilistic approach to life, that it is some fluke, or just a random occurrence, life becomes inconsequential. Both dead and alive, in this mindset, hold similar value, and therefore actions such as murder hold no state of moral corruption for us, and we are free to free-wheel about aimlessly without worry that these actions may hold effect on anything else. If, however, we were to hold a more theocratic interpretation of life, that it is a magical and divine gift, then it becomes precious, and even the mere act of eating (or even being) becomes a method to uphold the holy mission. Humanity has always held a tendency towards knowledge, but if there is a logical reason for the existence of life, living beings cannot afford to understand it.

The essence of life not only lacks definition, but its origin has been the subject of debate since its existence. Physical science has proven that around four and a half billion years ago an ecumenical event occurred that caused the formation the elements in the known universe, and subsequently the edification of the celestial bodies that float around space (Kemper and Quirk). However the earliest known fossils show that living creatures have only resided on earth for less than three and a half billion years (Kemper and Quirk). Known as Stromatolites, they are a conglomeration of single-celled Pre-Cambrian Eukaryotes; Green algae (Kemper and Quirk). This means that at some point the molten lava, and toxic greenhouses gases of early earth transformed from inanimate minerals to moving creatures capable of self-reproduction. This life force is now nearly impossible to find on the surface of this planet. Even in the extreme temperature of deep sea vents and polar icecaps, there are thriving colonies of organisms called extremophiles that require extreme geochemical conditions to survive (Rossi). But, how did this life force come to exist at all?

We have known since the 1950’s that basic amino acids that form short bands of RNA are somewhat easy to reproduce in a laboratory by stimulating a replicated early earth atmosphere with heat and electrical charges similar to the lighting and volcanic eruptions that were thought to have occurred around the time of life‘s emergence (Miller, 1953). Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in their experiment (appropriately titled the “Miller-Urey experiment”) were able to reproduce organic compounds, that by the standard of this era in earth history would be unnoticeable at best, but are of great significance for the mere fact that they were organic. They had the remarkable capacity to grow and reproduce.

Thus, many of the current models of the origin of life were constructed, for example: The RNA World Hypothesis (Walter)- Because RNA is a close relative of the more biologically important DNA, it played a crucial role in the evolution of genetics. Not only can it be created from inorganic compounds (such as; Hydrogen sulfate, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Phosphate, etc,) but it also the defining ability of life to self-replicate. This hypothesis is the foundation for the; Clay World Hypothesis (Jain, Krishna)- Most types of clay have a static electrical charge on their surface that may have attracted certain types of ionized organic compounds and bound them together. Therefore we have the Primordial Oil Slick Hypothesis (Oparin)- The amino acid colonies that conglomerated would have formed little globules of organic matter, where each globule, as a different arrangement of chemicals would have each been a different experiment in the formation of life. This theory hypothesizes that the first masses capable of reproducing would have grown, split, and thus populated the planet, becoming the ancestors of terrestrial existence. Through survival of the fittest, the organisms unfit to continue would have died off and not spread their genetics. These droplets would grow by fusion with other droplets and “reproduce,” by fission into other droplets. This reproductive process would be a basic metabolism that would help to promote things such as cell integrity.

If this is the case, and life is nothing more than a systematic evolution of proteins, then the universe is a very unromantic place indeed. Life would have no value past an amazing accomplishment of chance. This sterile view of the universe, however is in direct conflict with the inborn notion of a higher purpose for existence.

This idea reduces living organisms to that of a inconsequential cog in a massively elegant machine. According to this perspective, animated creatures are nothing more than a by product of billions of years worth of subtle happening and random chance. This complex process of infinite slight changes over billions of years evolved what is now known as life. However, at the heart of the complexity of the universe there is a uniting elegance and simplicity. Much like a clock is made out of simple gears that work in unison towards a common end (that is, the tracking of time,) the elements of genetics come together similarly to grow and replicate (Watson).

That an underlying simplicity is at the core of the complexity of existence has been a central theme of the pursuit of knowledge for ages. Throughout the majority of human history the definitive text on the origin of life was the biblical book of Genesis. It recounts the creation of life as a six day process followed by a period of rest on the part of God (Ge 1, NIH). Although this version of creation appeals the least to logos, its emotional appeals gives the most hope for a meaning of life. It paints the universe as a consciously created masterpiece by a divine being rather than just some random happening. It sheds light on the inherent beauty and dignity that drives the basic mechanics of the cosmos. The purpose of life is to serve God and to seek salvation through his grace according to this notion. (John 1:12, NIV) It’s not exactly the most profound mission of life, even if it has been the accepted purpose though out most of human history. The cause provides a magnificent distraction for the wandering minds of philosophers and scientist that have attempted to define the simplistic nature of the universe. Although the tendency for progress and intellectualism has steered the path of history towards change, religion provides a great alternative for the knowledge that shouldn’t be had. It is a rabbit hole that allows direction of the idle wondering of human minds by giving rise to question after question of “The Truth” (two capitol t’s). If the goal of life is to serve God, what then is the proper way of serving?

How exactly to achieve this goal is a discussion that is beyond the scope of this paper. Though, no matter how we interpret the methodology for serving God, we still must define consciousness because the ability to be self-aware gives shapes the way that one might serve a higher being. Morality, is in itself, a consequence of consciousness. A deterministic universe in which all beings are cogs in a machine allows no accountability on the part of the one performing the action. It is as Nietzsche said “The deed creates the doer almost as an afterthought.” (Nietzsche) The creation of life creates the creator in retrospect.

The debate over what exactly consciousness is, has not progressed past the question. It is a question that is almost impossible to ask, for the experience of life is subjectively dependant on the unique blending of perspective and observation. I mention this philosophical problem because it illustrates that we don’t fully understand ourselves, let alone a manmade recreation of life. It has not yet been the necessity of evolution to be self aware, but the understanding of consciousness would be critical for the survival of a man made organism.

Take artificial intelligence, for example: there is no clear line between real intelligence and artificial intelligence. There is no universally accepted definitiion for intelligence, it is only possible to vaguely describe intelligence using terms such as the ability to plan and problem solve, or the ability to adapt to new changes in the environment (Stewart, Peter). AI (artificial intelligence,) has the ability for machine learning, which is the ability to recognize patterns in a series of input, but artificial intelligence cannot organically reproduce itself (Stewart, Peter) It requires its creator to perpetuate its existence.

We have created machines with artificial intelligence in order to serve ourselves. These machines have acted as a subordinates to us, trading stocks, diagnosing medical patients, and by being fun toys (Stewart, Peter). All important roles as tools of humanity, and although these machines have the ability to comprehend what they are doing, they need not necessarily be aware of the purpose for their actions. This knowledge would be superfluous to perform the task for robots, but for humans, it would be dangerous.

This hazard is the most prevailing scientific/ethical problem of all time. Numerous works of literature, such as Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” Asimov’s “I, Robot,” and the myth of “Prometheus.” There is a major control issue with runaway creations if we cannot first fully comprehend ourselves. There is an even more significant moral problem of creating unnatural monstrosities that should have never existed in the first place. A creator has a responsibility to its creation, and although modern science can recreate the mechanics from which life came, humanity lacks the understanding and therefore the capacity to be responsible for its biological creations. The epistemological problem of conscious awareness has been around quite literally forever, and it is no closer to an answer than it ever has been. The meaning of life will continue to be a mystery until will can solve some of the more contemporary conundrums of religion. Until then, ignorance is bliss!

And thus is the beauty of religion. Humans will always have the drive to understand their world better, but energy spend trying to understand t God, is energy that isn’t spent trying to be God. This direction of thought satisfies the want to learn, but provides no real knowledge. It is the perfect distraction because it offers vague, but satisfying answers to heavy question that are probably best left unanswered.