Mysteries of Life: Is There "Something Else"?

Science is based on naturalism, the notion that all manifestations in the universe are explainable in terms of the known laws of physics and chemistry.This notion represents the cornerstone of the scientific enterprise. Unless we subscribe to it, we might as well close our laboratories. If we start from the assumption that what we are investigating is not explainable, we rule out scientific research.

Contrary to the view expressed by some scientists, this logical necessity does not imply that naturalism is to be accepted as an a priori philosophical stand, a doctrine or belief. As used in science, it is a postulate, a working hypothesis often qualified as "methodological naturalism" by philosophers, which we should be ready to abandon if faced with facts or events that defy every attempt at a naturalistic explanation. But we should only accept the intervention of "something else" as a last resort after all possibility of explaining a given phenomenon in naturalistic terms has been exhausted. Should we reach such a point, assuming it can be recognized, we may still have to distinguish between two alternatives: is the "something else" an unknown law of nature now disclosed by our investigations, as has happened several times in the past, or is it a truly supernatural agency?

Traditionally, life with all its wonders and mysteries has been a favorite ground for the belief in "something else." Largely muted by the spectacular advances of biology in the last century, this position has been brought back into prominence by a small but vocal minority of scientists, whose opinions have been widely relayed in various philosophical and religious circles. In this essay, I wish to examine briefly whether, as is claimed, certain biological phenomena that truly defy every attempt at a naturalistic explanation and make it necessary to invoke the intervention of "something else" indeed exist. Has a stage been reached where all scientific avenues have been exhausted? If such should be the case, are we to enlarge our notion of what is natural? Or have we met the authentically supernatural?

In examining these questions, I have assumed that readers are familiar with at least the basic elements of modern biology. Also, references have been strictly limited. For additional information and a more detailed treatment of the topics addressed, readers are referred to earlier works (de Duve 1995, 1998) and to a forthcoming book (de Duve 2002).

The Nature of Life

Research into the mechanisms that support life represents one of the most spectacular successes of the naturalistic approach. I can bear personal witness to this astonishing feat. When I was first exposed to biochemistry, only a number of small biological building blocks, such as sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, fatty acids, and a few others, had been identified. How these molecules were made by living organisms was largely unknown. Not a single macromolecule arising from their combination had been characterized. Of metabolism only a few central pathways, such as glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle, had been painstakingly unravelled. Enzymology was still in its infancy. So was bioenergetics, which at that time boiled down to the recent discovery of ATP and some hints of the role of this substance as a universal purveyor of biological energy. As for genetic information transfers, our ignorance was complete. We did not even know the structure of DNA, let alone its function.

We were hardly disheartened by the puniness of these achievements. On the contrary, we saw them as tremendous triumphs. They opened wide vistas, testified to the fact that life could be approached with the tools of biochemistry, and strongly encouraged us to further research. But the unsolved problems loomed huge on the horizon, and their solution appeared remote. I, for my part, never imagined in my wildest dreams--and I don't think any of my contemporaries did--that I would live to see them elucidated. Yet, that is what has happened. We now know the...