All topics in biology can be divided into two major categories: 1. Contemporary Topics and 2. Historical Topics. Contemporary topics address “modern biological questions,” which doesn’t mean that these questions didn’t exist at some point in the past. These topics include questions such as: how does a living cell function, how are certain inherited traits passed from parents to offspring, how does the innervation of a muscle work, how is the axonal potential transmitted from nerve to muscle, and so on.
Historical topics involve questions and answers related to the origin of life, the origin of biological species, and humans. Humans are also a biological species, but we tend to separate them slightly. Evolutionists place all of this in the same category. Hence, you have “Comparative Physiology of Animals,” where humans are included. This is how the idea that humans are animals persists.
Thus, the question of “the origin of life” falls under historical questions.
The first hypothesis stating that life could emerge from non-living matter was the so-called “spontaneous generation hypothesis.” It dates back to Aristotle, who, seeing that living beings emerged from mud and swamps, mistakenly concluded that they originated there.
Later, following Aristotle’s authority—especially during the Middle Ages (Augustine, for instance, adored Plato and introduced him to Christianity)—Thomas Aquinas “baptized” Aristotle and subsequently “baptized” his philosophy.
At that time, people believed in a vital force or principle called “vis vitalis,” which was thought to be necessary to animate matter. So, some nutritive medium would serve as a substrate, and “vis vitalis” would act on this substrate, bringing it to life and generating various living beings.
There were even recipes for generating flies, toads, and other creatures. For example, it was believed that if you killed a young bull with one blow to the head, buried it in the ground leaving only its horns exposed, and then came back after a few weeks to cut off the horns, flies would emerge.
It was also believed that mice could be created from dirty laundry or wheat, that lions were generated from desert stones… It is hard for us to understand the mindset of people from those times. The leading scientists of that era were theologians, sitting in their cabinets, writing about blood and flesh, yet never seeing either.
The first to challenge this theory was Francesco Redi. In his time, people were polymaths. They could hold all of the knowledge of that era and be experts in various fields, as science was not as developed. Today, we have extreme specialization.
To return to the topic, Francesco Redi was an encyclopedic mind—he was a doctor, naturalist, and even engaged in literature. While reading “The Iliad” and “The Odyssey,” he noticed how Achilles wanted his friend Patroclus to be buried quickly so that flies wouldn’t contaminate his wounds. Redi then wondered: “Could it be that these Greeks had a better understanding of nature and what happens in nature than we people of the Middle Ages?”
He then conducted an experiment (these were archaic experiments, and it may be difficult for us to even understand what people believed in those times). He took two containers, placed meat in both, and covered one with a glass bell. After a certain period of time, he noticed that the uncovered meat container had first attracted maggots, and later insects, while the container covered with the glass bell showed no signs of insects.
He then gave a reasonable explanation: the insects developed from eggs laid by insects that had landed on the meat.
However, proponents of the “vis vitalis” theory argued that Francesco Redi’s experiment not only failed to disprove the theory of “vis vitalis,” but actually proved it. How so? “Well, by simply covering the piece of meat with a glass bell, you did not allow the ‘vis vitalis’ from nature to penetrate and create life.” This is similar to what happens in science today. You might conduct an experiment thinking you’ve proven something, only for it to turn out that you haven’t proven anything, and in fact, it could serve as an argument for the opposing side.
So, they claimed that “vis vitalis” could not penetrate, and therefore, new life could not emerge. What did Francesco Redi do next? He took two pieces of meat and covered one with a gauze cloth, leaving the other exposed. Why with gauze? So that if “vis vitalis” truly exists, it could penetrate through the gauze and bring the dead matter to life. Once again, the result was the same, leading him to conclusively conclude that new life forms only arise from previously existing life forms. And we would say, “This problem was solved.”
It seemed like Francesco Redi had won. But then, around that time, Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered the microscope, and a previously unseen world appeared to the human eye—an unknown world of microorganisms that are invisible to the naked eye. Proponents of the “vis vitalis” hypothesis then said: “Alright, if Redi showed that insects can’t develop, that doesn’t follow that microorganisms can’t develop, ones Francesco Redi didn’t even know about. Besides, these microorganisms don’t reproduce through eggs, but simply by division.”
Then, a scientist, the Jesuit Irish priest Nidhem, conducted the following experiment: He took a bottle, put a nutrient medium inside, and then boiled it, but not for long. When he looked under the microscope at the contents of the bottle, he saw a large number of microorganisms. He concluded that they arose due to the action of “vis vitalis.”
What do you think— is “vis vitalis” an atheistic or theistic hypothesis? Atheistic. Because “vis vitalis” is a life principle that inherently exists in nature. It is not something that exists outside the realm of nature. This is important. Essentially, this is a materialistic, mostly atheistic hypothesis.
So Nidhem and the French materialist philosopher Bichon created a theory of the “vegetative power of nature.” That is, “nature has the vegetative power to revive what is dead.” Nidhem published his “discovery” under the loud title: “New Microscopic Discoveries.” So nature, by itself, has the vegetative power to create life from dead matter.
You see, this is still a materialistic hypothesis. In fact, this is no longer a hypothesis but a theory, because it has experimental proof behind it. And this experiment was considered crucial, providing evidence for the theory. There is no longer any need for a being in the universe to give us life—there is now a concrete experiment proving that life can emerge from the dead. People of the 18th century, who eagerly denied a higher divine power, eagerly embraced this possibility presented by the experiment.
However, on the other hand, there were those who believed that spontaneous generation of life did not exist at all, and they wanted to prove it. One of them was Francesco Redi, who attacked the old claims. After the emergence of Nidhem and Bichon’s new theories, with much more scientific rigor, Italian priest Lazaro Spallanzani (another priest who worked in science) conducted about 1,000 experiments. All of them can be grouped into three basic types.
He took three bottles and placed a nutrient medium (like sheep broth or other nutrient-rich substances) inside. He then sealed two bottles hermetically, and left the third one open with just a cork. He heated the first sealed bottle for a few minutes, the second one for more than an hour, and the third, open bottle, was also heated for over an hour. So, there were two sealed bottles in which “vis vitalis” could not penetrate if it existed, and one open bottle where, if it existed, “vis vitalis” could potentially penetrate.
When he looked under the microscope, he saw microorganisms in the broth of the bottle that was sealed and heated for a few minutes. That is, “vis vitalis” could not penetrate, yet microorganisms still appeared. From this, he correctly concluded that they were already there and had survived the brief exposure to higher temperatures.
When he took a sample from the other sealed bottle, which had been heated for a long time, and placed it under the microscope, he saw nothing. But when he took material from the unsealed bottle, which had also been boiled for a long time, and placed it under the microscope, he saw microorganisms.
From this, he correctly concluded that in Nidhem’s case, he did not allow the microorganisms that were already present in the substrate to be killed, because Nidhem did not allow the substrate to finish cooking, and therefore did not kill the organisms that were already there. Although they were few, they were still present. This means that life exists; there are living organisms that multiplied and gave new living beings. In the unsealed bottle that he had boiled for a long time, he simply argued that microorganisms had penetrated from the outside. Thus, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted experiments that strongly testified against Nidhem’s theory.
However, those who still believed in the vegetative force of nature, that nature could bring things to life, said that Lazzaro Spallanzani’s experiments were not correct. Why? Because he heated the nutrient mediums for too long, thus drying out the air in the bottle, and thereby destroying the vis vitalis (the vital force). In other words, the air inside contained vis vitalis, and by drying it too much, he could not generate new organisms.
In the case of the bottle heated for a short time, vis vitalis remained in its potent state because the air was not dried out enough, and vis vitalis revived the lifeless matter.
In the third container, although the air was dried out, due to prolonged heating, living beings could still appear because new air could enter through the cork, and with it, vis vitalis. We will see that this “drying” of the air was the critical point in proving the theory.
A good experiment had to be devised to finally disprove this “vital force” hypothesis. You see, in many things, there are arguments, but it is hard to come to a final proof. An argument is something that helps one side, but hinders the other.
Lazzaro Spallanzani died without succeeding in convincing his opponents that he was right. He did not manage to devise an experiment that would unambiguously prove his point.
The final proof against this hypothesis was given by the famous Louis Pasteur. He was truly a great man. He worked on the rabies virus when little was known about viruses, and he defeated rabies. He was very religious. He believed that God existed and was inspired by how Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for the world. He believed that there is a Being in the universe that gives life, and he wanted to prove that nature cannot bring dead matter to life. To that end, he devised an experiment that was, in essence, genius—genius in its idea. (From today’s perspective, the apparatus and technique are also archaic.) (Figure 2)
What did he do?
Since the critical point was the drying of air, he made a bottle with a neck shaped like a swan’s neck. It’s almost the same as the Spallanzani experiment: a bottle with a solution, but Louis Pasteur made a container with a neck shaped like the letter “S” or a swan’s neck. Inside the bottle, he placed a sterile medium and left it open.
Now, if there really is a “vital force,” because there is no air drying (which was that “critical point”), it can enter. No microorganisms ever appeared. This is because bacteria can enter the neck, but they cannot get into the medium because they don’t have wings to fly into it.
When he tilted the container so that the medium entered the neck (see Image 3) and then returned it, microorganisms appeared. And no one could argue against Pasteur’s experiments anymore. Finally, the atheistic hypothesis of spontaneous generation was disproven.
So, there was something that was critical, which needed to be established, and Louis Pasteur succeeded, definitively, with one elegant experiment, in proving that life only comes from life. And based on his experiments, the famous Latin phrase “Omne vivo ex vivo” arose, meaning: “Life only comes from life.”
And now, theologians made good use of this. When Pasteur proved this, the theologians said, “Pasteur, thank you!” and then the philosophical superstructure began: If it is true that all life comes from life, and the chain of living beings is not infinite, then it inevitably follows that there is a living being that has “life in itself,” not borrowed life, and can give life to others. From Pasteur’s law, the 19th-century apologists easily arrived at the idea of a Being which the Bible calls God, one that has life in itself. That is, a Being that does not have borrowed life, but has life “in itself” and can give life to others.
Does such a conclusion really necessarily follow from what Pasteur proved? Must such a conclusion be drawn? If it is true what Pasteur established, that life arises only from life, and if the chain of living beings is not infinite, you will feel that there must be one being that gives life, otherwise, there would be no living beings. However, there are some people who argue in this way: “Here I am, a living being. My immediate biological cause, my being as a living entity, is my parents. The biological cause of my parents is their parents, and so on, until we get to the last link, here on Earth, where we can move to space.”
So, the main problem here is: “Is the chain of living beings finite or infinite?” If the chain of living beings is infinite, then it is clear that we do not reach the first cause. “Yes, Pasteur’s law holds, but the chain of living beings is infinite. I came from my parents, my parents came from theirs, and so on…” This is called an infinite chain, “regressus in infinitum,” or “escaping into infinity,” to avoid admitting that there is one Being that has life in itself. But is the chain finite or infinite?
When we think about causal chains or causal nexus, there is a common fallacy. For example, let’s say we have a causal nexus: Event A has its appropriate cause. Let’s say, a traffic accident caused by a lady. Inattention is the cause of the accident. But here, we have inattention as the consequence. What caused the inattention? A toothache. And what caused the toothache? Not using toothpaste. And why didn’t she use toothpaste? Underdeveloped habits. And why underdeveloped habits? Poor upbringing. And why bad upbringing? Bad parents. And why are the parents like that? … This is called a causal chain or causal nexus.
Now, when we look at living beings, one living being has its cause in its parents, they in theirs, and so on, there is this biological causal chain. What is characteristic here is that our thinking about causality does not align with the fact of causality. Because causality passes from father to son.
So, what is very important to notice is that our thinking about causality goes backward, while the actual fact of causality goes forward. That is why we can escape into infinity, because our thinking about causality does not align with the fact of causality.
If we want our thinking to align with the direction of causality, it is simply impossible for us to go into an infinite chain. Because we have to start from somewhere, we must begin counting from a certain point. Imagine, how would you begin counting from infinity? If you count to yourself, you didn’t start well. It’s simply impossible to begin counting from infinity.
Therefore, if I want my thinking about causality to align with the actual fact, I cannot begin from infinity, because it’s contradictory; I would never reach myself. If you start from infinity, you cannot reach yourself. If you manage to reach yourself, you didn’t start from infinity, you started from the first cause.
Another important point is that the chain is only potentially infinite. Every chain is only potentially infinite, and its potential infinity consists in the fact that we can, at any moment, only fictively add certain members to it. But it is always finite.
Thus, the chain can only be potentially infinite – if I add some fictive members in my mind, and that potentially. If I sit and imagine. However, we are not invited to imagine but to see what is actual, real. Actually, the chain is finite with me, and it is absurd to think that there is an end without a beginning.
For example, if I look at the biological chain of causes of my being, this chain is surely finite with my being. Because you see, it is easy to imagine a beginning without an end. It means something has started and continues. But how can we imagine an end without a beginning? Such a chain is absurd. Try it in your mind. You can only upset your brain and get blisters on it. If someone imagines an end without a beginning, the end of a chain with no beginning, it’s simply impossible.
It is an absurd thought that there could be an end to a sequence that has no beginning. There is no end to something that has no beginning. That cannot be imagined. However, it is quite logical that there is a beginning that has an end, and there can also be a beginning that has no end. This can be imagined and realized. It is very easy to imagine that something is beginning now and does not have to have an end. The Bible asserts this too, that God creates at a certain moment, and that is intended for eternity. This is very easy to imagine, but imagining an end without a beginning is an absurd thought. Therefore, when you say that Pasteur’s law applies, that all living things arise from living things, and we see that a sequence of living beings, specifically, cannot be infinite, this automatically means that there must be one being that does not borrow its life but has life in itself. Such a being is the divine being. This is similar to the argument for the existence of God based on the law of causality.
So, theologians have argued like this. There is also a funny anecdote about a train that serves as a good illustration of this. It’s a very interesting anecdote. It tells the story of how, in the last carriage of a train, there were a fiery atheist and a religious man who believed in the existence of God. They were talking about various topics, and the religious man kept trying to convince the atheist, or at least get him to consider that what the atheists believe might not be entirely true. So, there are two beliefs: atheistic and theistic.
They were talking about many things. Of course, the fiery atheist also wanted to push his idea to the theist. The theist said to him: “Well, there must be a God as the first cause.” And the atheist said: “Not necessarily, a chain of causes could be infinite.” Then the theist asked the atheist a very serious question, the seriousness of which the atheist did not immediately realize: “What do you think, does this train we are traveling on have a locomotive?”
The anecdote goes on to say how the atheist, remaining consistent with his materialistic view, replied: “The movement of the train can be explained in another way. (This is the atheist’s explanation.) We are in the last carriage, and we are moving because the last carriage pulls the carriage in front of it. This one pulls the next one, and so on. I can imagine that we are moving because our train has an infinite number of carriages, and in fact, there is no locomotive.”
This is the atheist’s way of thinking, to never arrive at a divine being, but to make an infinite chain of carriages.
And what does the theist say in response? The theist responds: “I understand that this arises from your materialistic conviction, but please, even though our train composition is very long, and we do not see the locomotive, we can only imagine an infinitely long composition if it is standing still. Once it is moving, it means there must be a locomotive. The longer the composition, the stronger the locomotive.”
The theist adds: “It’s wrong that your thinking about causality moves in the opposite direction — it goes from us, from the effect to the cause, but causality itself moves in the opposite direction, from the cause to the effect. If we want the direction of our thinking to match the actual direction of causality, we must start counting from the locomotive towards our carriage. In that case, we cannot imagine the locomotive as infinitely far away, meaning we cannot deny its existence and action, because that would mean our carriage is not moving, nor is the whole composition. We can imagine an infinite composition that is standing still. Once it is moving, it must have a locomotive. The longer the composition, the stronger the locomotive.”
It’s the same with Pasteur’s law. If it’s true that a living being arises only from another living being, we must have a locomotive pulling. We must have a being that gives life, a being that has life in itself. The locomotive does not owe its movement to anyone. It has the ability to move on its own and can pull. It is a “self-existent being,” as we would say.
So, if the axiom is that “all living things arise from living things,” then once you see a living being that is not eternal, and we’ve seen that a sequence of living beings cannot be infinite, from this, we can firmly conclude that there must be a being that has life in itself.”