Arsenic Based Life?

You may have seen the headlines over the past few days about how scientists have now found an arsenic-based lifeform. At least, that's probably the impression you have gotten based on the triumphant headlines. For example, let's look at the first few lines of a story in the *ahem* titan of the mainstream media, the New York Times:

Scientists said Thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic, in place of phosphorus — one of six elements considered essential for life — opening up the possibility that organisms could exist elsewhere in the universe or even here on Earth using biochemical powers we have not yet dared to dream about.

The bacterium, scraped from the bottom of Mono Lake in California and grown for months in a lab mixture containing arsenic, gradually swapped out atoms of phosphorus in its little body for atoms of arsenic.

Scientists said the results, if confirmed, would expand the notion of what life could be and where it could be. “There is basic mystery, when you look at life,” said Dimitar Sasselov, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and director of an institute on the origins of life there, who was not involved in the work. “Nature only uses a restrictive set of molecules and chemical reactions out of many thousands available. This is our first glimmer that maybe there are other options.”

Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like they're really rooting for this to happen. Talking about the bacteria as if it's a cute and cuddly pet and dreaming of fantastic biochemical 'powers'? Please. And did you notice the expert they quoted right up front there? He's an astronomer, and he's not involved with the project. I mean, really, who better to comment on a bacteria at the bottom of a lake than an uninvolved astronomer?

A little desperate are we, NYT?

Anyway, let's examine the substance of the story. Is this really a monumental moment in 'life as we know it'? Are we really going to be forced to re-evaluate everything we know about life, what it takes to create it, and where it can be found?

One of my favorite resources when science overlaps into religion is Answers in Genesis. Chock full of PhD brainiacs, AIG is one of the leading Christian apologetics organizations in the country, and often on the front lines of the cultural battle between Biblical Creation and the theory of evolution. Here's what they have to say about the NYT's arsenic friend (emphasis mine):

The microorganisms aren’t quite what most people imagine when they hear “aliens,” especially since the life-forms are from earth. But the organisms can use arsenic to function in place of phosphorus, a biological ability both novel and, well, alien to life as we know it—or, rather, knew it.

The bacterium was found in California’s strange Mono Lake, a chemically abnormal lake home that has higher-than-normal levels of arsenic. Although arsenic is chemically similar to phosphorus, an element long thought to be crucial for life, arsenic is usually toxic. Nonetheless, researchers have speculated that arsenic-based life might exist on earth, arguing that if so, it would force a major revision in our ideas about what basic elements life requires.

In this case, the bacteria did not use arsenic naturally, but instead adapted to use it in a laboratory setting as researchers increased the level of arsenic in its diet. Eventually, the bacteria began using the arsenic as a normal part of their metabolic and cellular processes—whereas most organisms would have died. Still, the bacteria reportedly “thrived best” on a phosphorus diet.

In that sense, although the discovery of a life-form that can live on arsenic is fascinating, it falls short of predictions that we might find a “shadow biosphere” of life-forms based on arsenic that (allegedly) evolved separately from phosphorus-based life. Arizona State University astrobiologist Paul Davies, one of the scientists behind the research, explained, “At the moment we have no idea if life is just a freak, bizarre accident which is confined to earth or whether it is a natural part of a fundamentally biofriendly universe in which life pops up wherever there are earth-like conditions.” He added candidly, “Although it is fashionable to support the latter view, we have zero evidence in favour of it.”

So while some may see in the discovery more evidence that “aliens” may be out there (albeit genuine extraterrestrials), it in fact offers less evidence for the possibility of a unique form of life than some scientists had hoped for. Further, learning that life can live on a slightly different chemical cocktail does nothing to show that life of any sort can evolve; the two are distinct questions. Finally, and as we pointed out previously, given that the evolutionary origin of life is a dubious speculation (for creationists) and not well understood problem (for evolutionists), positing a separate form of life that evolved independently would raise more questions than it would answer and only cast further doubt on the evolutionary enterprise.

That's one of the things I like about AIG - whereas the NYT story referred to an uninvolved astronomer, AIG referred to the guy doing the research, who says himself that there's really no evidence to support the conclusion the NYT was heralding.

As Christians, we need to boldly go straight for the facts on things like this. God designed our world, our bodies, and our universe to be perfect and bursting with variety; it was only after the sin of Man that imperfections were introduced. Nevertheless, the natural world around us is an incredible place of which we really have a relatively small understanding. We shouldn't fear new discoveries or revelations at all, but we should be exceedingly careful not to let the secular world's interpretation of the facts color our reliance on God's Word or what that Word declares as truth.