International Journal of Astrobiology, Page 1 of 9

doi:10.1017/S1473550416000100 © Cambridge University Press 2016

Where/when/how did life begin? A

philosophical key for systematizing theories
on the origin of life

Adam Świeżyński
Institute of Philosophy, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Warsaw, Poland e-mail: a.swiezynski@uksw.edu.pl

Abstract: The question of the origin of life interested people for centuries. All existing views on this subject can
be classified into different areas of human knowledge about the world: natural sciences, philosophy, and
theology (religion). It is interesting to look at them closer and to classify all the typical groups of the theories
about the origins of life. We can then see links existing between them and relationships that indicate their own
nature. Nowadays, driving forces of prebiological chemical evolution and the mode of explanation of the
transition ‘non-life into life’ give a great variety of solutions. The differences between the theories, however, as
well as the current controversies in the scientific community (what ‘in the beginning’ was?; where and when the
prebiotic evolution may took place? etc.) will be shown as of secondary importance for the theories’
systematization in comparison with several much more profound philosophical assumptions underlying the
origin-of-life-studies. My proposal to organize and classify different types of the theories of genesis of life
allows for extracting conceptions of different kind: metaphysical and scientific, and also for comparing them
with each other. Some of them answer the question of the emergence of life in general and others on the question
of the origin of life on the Earth only. In the perspective of contemporary scientific research on the origin of life
it seems interesting that two main ideas concerning the problem of the origin of life, spontaneous generation
and panspermia, are still present as presuppositions of certain theories but have been modified. Thus a
‘philosophical key’ seems to be the most appropriate to systematize all kinds of theories on the origin of life.
This paper is an attempt to justify the position adopted. Most important conclusion is that the philosophical
basis or implications, which are irreducibly present and possible to be found within the scientific theories of the
origin of life, indicates that this problem is not just the strictly scientific one; it is the philosophical problem, too;
thus it cannot be fully solved merely through referring to the empirical aspect of biogenesis.
Received 11 August 2015, accepted 5 March 2016

Key words: abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, panspermia, theories of biogenesis.

‘The theories which we accept at present have their roots in
notions, which go back to the earliest ages’ (Arrhenius 1909,
p. 260).
Introduction
The oldest attempts to solve the problem of the origin of life
may be traced in various myths, religious beliefs and philoso-
phical approaches. The development of pre-scientific and
scientific knowledge led to the production of an abundance
of hypotheses and theories, which are at times complementary
or contrary to one another and which have been partially con-
firmed or even refuted by new scientific findings. Therefore,
some explanations of the origin of life are merely of historical
value nowadays. The development of the modern empirical
search for the beginning of life dates back to the middle of
the 20th century1.
1 The symbolic date in this case is the year 1952, when Stanley L. Miller
made landmark experiments in the origin of life by demonstrating that a
wide range of vital organic compounds can be synthesized by fairly sim-
ple chemical processes from inorganic substances (the Miller experiment
appeared in his technical paper in May 1953). Of course it should be
Generally speaking, the beginning of life on the Earth may
be interpreted and explained in five main forms: (1) as the result
of God’s or some kind of supernatural creation act; (2) as the
effect of the spontaneous and immediate process of transform-
ing inanimate matter into an animate one (‘naive’ spontaneous
generation); (3) as the effect of the physico-chemical evolution
of matter taking place on the Earth (natural-scientific abiogen-
esis); (4) as the transference onto the Earth of life, which had
previously arose on other celestial bodies or in cosmic places
(panspermia); (5) lastly, there is the supposition that life is an
eternal property of existence. This last thesis does not actually
explain biogenesis, but rather refutes the nature of the question
by asserting that life has no beginning at all.
Nowadays, the problem of the origin of life may be discussed
from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. The
noted, that as early as 1924 Alexander Oparin put forward a hypothesis
claiming that life on Earth developed through a gradual chemical evolu-
tion of carbon-based molecules in the Earth’s ‘primordial soup’.
Similarly, it behooves us to mention the early twentieth-century research
conducted by H. Osborn, A. Dauvillier, E. Desguin, J.D. Bernal,
M. Calvin et al. (Oparin et al. 1959; Kamminga 1988).

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016 IP address: 131.172.36.29

2 A. Świeżyński
scientific approaches provide the basis for the philosophical
analysis of the origins of life discussed in this paper.
Nevertheless, the final scientific conclusions are always condi-
tioned by the philosophical assumptions of the researchers and
theorists working on this problem. The philosophical implica-
tions of these theories are worthy of detailed examination (on
the subject of multiple relationships between philosophy and
astrobiology: Chela-Flores 2011, pp. 247–256).
The present scientific theories of the origin of life are devel-
oped on the basis of specialized biological, chemical, physical
and astrophysical research results. Past attempts to explain the
genesis of life were based on superficial casual observation
(without the use of advanced scientific tools and research meth-
ods), so that may be classified as scientific explanations be-
cause they used the empirical method (i.e. observations) even
though they did not use the more modern method of hypothesis
testing. These theories bear witness to the complex historical
development of the various explanations for the origins of life.
Biogenesis was presented as a hypothesis as early as 1897
when Richard Krzymowski (1875–1960) (Schröder-Lembke
1982), a Polish emigrant’s son living in the Swiss town
Winterthur, published in the magazine ‘Die Natur’ his article
entitled: ‘The essence of spontaneous generation’ (‘Das Wesen
der Urzeugung’) (Krzymowski 1897). His conception of bio-
genesis was based on the idea of pre-biological natural selec-
tion and of early heterotrophy. Unfortunately, his article was
largely forgotten; instead, scientists who presented similar con-
ceptions almost a quarter of a century later, namely A. Oparin,
J.B.S. Haldane, J. Alexander, C. Bridges, are considered the
precursors of modern examinations of biogenesis.
Nevertheless, in his last years Krzymowski was able to witness
the emergence of the scientific discipline concerning the begin-
nings of life (protobiology) at the first international conference
on this subject held in Moscow in 1957 (International
Conference of the Origin of Life – ICOL). The amount of
scientific scholarship dealing with this problem has been in-
creasing since 1957. Between the 1957 and 2000, more than
150 theories of biogenesis were published; and recently the
number has increased significantly (Ługowski 2005, 2008b,
2010).
The multiplicity of old and new biogenesis theories merits
some attempts at systematization. One reason is, of course,
to bring some order among the various theories. But more im-
portantly, such work might possibly produce some universal
‘key’ which could be useful for this purpose and independent
from empirical research achievements. The proposal, I would
like to present, assumes that philosophical premises play an im-
portant role in the construction of theories of the origin of life2.
Likewise, an examination of the philosophical implications of
these theories, and the fact of identifying and describing them
2 ‘Scientists quite often tend to deny any relevance of philosophical
considerations to their specific work. . . . the importance of philosophical
assumptions and arguments in the study of the emergence of life field
cannot be doubted. Philosophy, in this case, goes to the core – to the
very ‘right of existence’ of this scientific endeavor’ (Fry 1995, p. 414).
Cf. Ruse 1997.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
in an adequate way, may turn out to be essential as far as sys-
tematizing the multiplicity of scientific theories of the origin of
life is concerned. I think that each of the theories in question is
underlain by one of two main ideas, which have shaped both
the past and the present views on the origin of life. These
ideas are: (1) the idea of spontaneous generation and (2) the
idea of panspermia. Both ideas evolved and underwent some
essential transformations during centuries, but they both may
also be traced in the modern natural-scientific proposals of sol-
ving the puzzle of life genesis. Therefore a ‘philosophical key’,
which I propose, seems to be the most appropriate to system-
atize all kinds of theories on the origin of life. This paper offers
a justification of this position.
Landscape of views on the origin of life: types of
theories
The proposed classification of all conceptions of the origin of
life is, first of all, conditioned historically, i.e. by the chronol-
ogy of their emergence and by the approach towards the scien-
tific results concerning the origin of life (‘vertical view’). The
conceptions, which were proposed before the development of
experimental method in its present sense and application to
the question of the beginning of life (before the 1860s the origin
of life was primarily of philosophical and religious interest and
only exercised the minds of practicing scientists in an incidental
manner) or which ignore the scientific findings completely,
may be described as metaphysical ones3. The conceptions,
which arose within the modern and current natural science
(as it was mentioned, Oparin’s theory, with its strong roots in
biochemistry, laid the foundations for modern approaches to
the question, including some of the experimental approaches
that have characterized research since the 1950s; cf.
Kamminga 1988, pp. 7–9), I propose categorizing as ‘scienti-
fic’. However, I assume that neither of them is completely
free from the specific philosophical assumptions and pre-
assumptions as well as from philosophical implications follow-
ing from them. In other words, we may distinguish in these
conceptions the scientific (empirical) level, which is usually
the fundamental content of the conception and the philosophi-
cal level, containing the consciously or unconsciously adopted
propositions4. This premise, of the indissolvable marriage of
3 The ‘border point’ can be experiments conducted by L. Pasteur, but
its findings concern only the rejection of spontaneous generation – he did
not propose a positive solution. Until the 19th century, all ‘scientists’
were actually natural philosophers. It is worth noting that while
I. Newton is largely considered the father of optics and physics, he was
also a theologian whose corpus remains largely unexamined because it is
written in dense Latin and not concerned with the birth of modern
science. The early theorists of the origins of life were philosophers adopt-
ing an empirical method rather than professional scientists divorced from
the assumptions that underlie their examinations of natural phenomena.
4 The most fundamental pre-assumptions are, for instance, the ontolo-
gical assumption on the existence of the order within the nature and the
epistemological assumption on the possibility and ability of human mind
to know this order. The assumptions adopted by the contemporary
authors of the origin of life theories, in turn, may be: the assumption
on the existence of causal relationship, especially the physical and
IP address: 131.172.36.29

philosophy and science is evident from a detailed analysis of
content of particular contemporary theories on the origin of
life. This is a typical situation for science because empirical
data (usually in the form of quantitative values) require adopt-
ing a theory for interpretation. In turn, a theory contains a ser-
ies of assumptions. For example, underlying the theory of the
self-organization of proteins (Kauffman 1993) is the explicit
philosophical belief that self-organization should be regarded
as a natural, original ownership of complex systems and con-
sidered at least as important a source of order in the animate
nature as natural selection. ‘I’ve always wanted the order one
finds in the world not to be particular, peculiar, odd or con-
trived – I want it to be, in the mathematical sense, generic.
Typical. Natural. Fundamental. Inevitable. Godlike. That’s
it. It’s God’s heart, not his twiddling fingers, that I’ve always
in some sense wanted to see’ (Levy 1993, p. 128). In turn, in
the theory of comet pond (Clark 1988) implies that life could
have arisen as a result of a sequence of events unlikely (‘an
extremely-low-probability sequence of events’) and is sufficient
because it would only take a single comet carrying relevant bio-
chemicals to bring about the development of life on Earth.
Furthermore, metaphysical explanations as to the origins of
life still hold purchase in contemporary society: Schools in
Texas still teach creationism in their educational curricula
and we can find the supporters of the creationist vision of the
beginning of life (for example, in modern version as ‘Rational
Design Hypothesis’; Shiller 2004).
Another important distinction between all the conceptions
of life genesis is the scope of their theories: do they seek to an-
swer the question of the origin of life on the Earth? or the origin
of life in the Universe (‘horizontal view’)? The two questions
may either be treated separately, or we may assume that the be-
ginning of life on the Earth is the beginning of life in the
Universe (in the latter case, we have another philosophical as-
sumption). Both fundamental distinctions of the conceptions
of the origin of life mentioned above, after overlapping them,
outline the general areas, in which particular types of concep-
tions of biogenesis may be situated.
Thus, we have: (1) the area of metaphysical conceptions ex-
plaining the emergence of life on Earth (M-E); (2) the area of
metaphysical conceptions explaining the origin of life in the
Universe (M-U); (3) the area of scientific theories explaining
the emergence of life on Earth (S-E); (4) the area of scientific
theories explaining the origin of life in the Universe (S-U).
The above distinctions are not mutually exclusive and, thus,
allow for interrelations between the distinguished areas and be-
tween the types of theories of the origin of life situated within
them (Fig. 1).
dynamic interdependence of phenomena, through which the matter re-
veals its development abilities and the tendency towards the higher de-
grees of complexity; the acknowledgement of the existence of the
abiotic period in the Earth history; the assumption on the chemical simi-
larity of the first living creatures to the presently living organisms; and
finally, the reductionist assumption that biological phenomena are the
manifestations of chemical processes, so the physico-chemical way of ex-
plaining biological phenomena is sufficient (cf. Ługowski 2002).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
Where/when/how did life begin? 3
We should begin our discussion with the metaphysical con-
ceptions, as they are the earliest in the history of human
thought. This group contains: (1) the conception of life pre-
existent in conjunction with the idea of panspermia (old ver-
sion); (2) the conception of creation of life on Earth; (3) earthly
spontaneous generation – within the area of conceptions con-
cerning the beginning of life on Earth; and (1) the conception of
age-long character of life; (2) the conception of creation of life
(in the Universe); (3) cosmic spontaneous generation – within
the area of conceptions concerning the origin of life in the
Universe5. Historically, primitively knowledge of inanimate
and animate matter, and its beginning was limited to the simple
observation of facts placed in observed nature. Then was added
reflection of thoughts, according to the progress of scientific
knowledge about observed facts, which needed interpretation.
Mentioned concepts are of metaphysical type, because their
central part is a metaphysical idea of spontaneous generation
of animate matter from inanimate one or belief in the existence
of eternal life, which is as old as the entire material reality. We
should note, at this point, that the conception of creation of life
may be the explanation of its existence both in the Universe
and merely on the Earth, depending on the place, to which
the act of creation is attributed. Moreover, we have to differ-
entiate between two forms of creation, in accordance with tra-
ditional theological approaches, into direct and indirect
creation. This distinction is important for outlining the possi-
bility of negotiating the fundamental propositions of metaphy-
sical conception with the scientific conceptions (and will be
discussed it in greater detail later)6.
The scientific conceptions may also be divided into those
concerning the emergence of life on the Earth and those,
which concern the origin of life in the Universe.
Chronologically speaking, we may distinguish the following
5 The supporters of conception of the pre-existence of life were, e.g.:
C. Flammarion (1842–1925); H. Richter (1808–1876); H. von
Helmholtz (1821–1894); W. Thomson (1824–1907) – lithopanspermia;
S. Arrhenius (1856–1927) – radio-panspermia. The metaphysical concep-
tion of creation of life, in turn, was developed by, i.a.: St. Basil the Great;
St. Augustine; St. Thomas Aquinas. And the conception of the age-long
character of life was developed by: Ionian philosophers of nature (a.o.
Thales); Anaxagoras; W. Preyer (1841–1897) – potential life theory;
G. Fechner (1801–1887) – cosmic-organic movement; E. Le Roy
(1870–1954) – hypothesis of bio-sphere; V.I. Vernadsky (1863–1945) –
bio-sphere and noo-sphere. Spontaneous generation was developed
and affirmed i.a. by: Aristotle; Titus Lucretius Carus; J.B. van
Helmont (1579–1644); A. Kircher (1602–1680); L. Oken (1779–1851);
J.C. Ross (1800–1862); F.A. Pouchet (1800–1872); H. Ch. Bastian
(1837–1915). We have to distinguish the primary from secondary spon-
taneous generation; the secondary spontaneous generation is the
18th-century view, according to which living organisms (micro-
organisms) emerge out of the organic matter, which remained from the
disintegration of the previously existing living organisms, according to
the rule: ‘corruptio unius est generatio alterius’ (see J.T. Needham and
G.-L. de Buffon versus L. Spallanzani; for more details: Farley 1977;
Strick 2002).
6 It is also worth noting that the views concerning the pre-existence and/
or the age-long character of life constituted the thought background for
some authors of some modern and present conceptions of the origin of
life, which clearly points to the specific metaphysical preferences of their
authors.
IP address: 131.172.36.29
4 A. Świeżyński
Fig. 1. Types of theories.
within the former group of conceptions: (1) the natural-
scientific earthly abiogenesis7; (2) the natural-scientific bilinear
abiogenesis8; (3) the pre-existence of life in conjunction with
neopanspermia9. Within the area concerning the origin of life
in the Universe, we may situate cosmic abiogenesis.
The primary spontaneous generation (also called ‘naive’)
comes from ancient times, mainly from Aristotle’s views; it
contains the conviction that the specific (sometimes even
quite complex like fishes, frogs or insects) living organisms
may emerge suddenly and spontaneously in the favorable
7 For instance, theories proposed by: A. Oparin (coacervate theory);
S. Fox (micro-spheres theory); H. Quastler (theory of emergence of bio-
logical organization); C.R. Woese (theory of atmospheric protocells); A.
G. Cairns-Smith (theory of clay origin of life); S. Kauffman (theory of
self-organization of proteins); J.B. Corliss (theory of deep-sea vents);
J. Bada (theory of ice-cold ocean); Ch. de Duve (thioester theory);
C. Dobson, V. Vaida, A. Tuck et al. (atmospheric aerosols theory). It
is worth to pay attention to the variety of these theories in their
natural-scientific level.
8 In this case biogenesis means a cosmic-earthly joint of physico-
chemical processes leading to the formation of life. For instance, theories
proposed by: – A. Lazcano, J. Oro (cometary sources of the origin of life
on Earth); A. Brack, F. Raulin (meteorite theory); B.C. Clark (theory of
cometary pond); F.R. Krueger, J. Kissel (cometary-earthly scenario of
the origin of life); G.W. Wojtkiewicz (theory of geological eternity
of life). In the case of the theories of this group we also have to deal
with the multiplicity of detailed natural-scientific solutions. This group
of theories is also called: pseudo-panspermia, or soft-panspermia, or mo-
lecular panspermia.
9 The examples of neopanspermia theory are: interstellar or interplane-
tary panspermia; cometary panspermia; directed panspermia
(Wickramasinghe 2010).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
environment circumstances. This view was maintained for cen-
turies because, as late as the 19th century, some micro-
organisms were thought to be able to emerge in this way.
Depending on the place, to which we attribute the spontaneous
generation, we may distinguish the earthly spontaneous gen-
eration and the one, which took place within the Universe,
i.e. the cosmic (extraterrestrial spontaneous generation).
‘Naive’, spontaneous generation is – most generally speaking
– a view, according to which living creatures come into being
spontaneously and voluntarily from inanimate matter. It
should be noted that such a broad formulation of the idea of
spontaneous generation, however, does not show significant
differences that occur in understanding it. The basis for these
differences is constituted by different definitions of what
should be considered inanimate matter, and what – animate
matter. A thorough consideration of the arguments that have
been offered in the history of research into the nature in order
to justify the idea of spontaneous generation, and an investiga-
tion into the modern debates and controversies concerning this
idea allow discovering a variety of interpretations of the view of
a spontaneous and voluntary origin of biological organisms.
The variety was formed together with the development of the
scientific empirical method and with the participation of philo-
sophical concepts explaining the way the animate world func-
tions. With time, the idea of a spontaneous origin of organisms
underwent many transformations, first consisting in limiting
the range of its application (from macroscopic organisms
with complex structure to relatively simple microorganisms),
then in a change in its understanding, and finally to question-
ing the very idea. Also the way changed, in which the
IP address: 131.172.36.29

possibility of the occurrence of spontaneous generation in the
nature was motivated. However, it seems that the very core of
this idea, which contains a general thought about transforma-
tion of matter leading to the origin of living organisms, is still
maintained in the contemporary natural science.
Abiogenesis is the term sometimes used as a synonym for
spontaneous generation; that is, abiogenesis means life coming
from nonliving matter. Similar terms have been used to refer to
spontaneous generation of life at the submicroscopic level,
such as neobiogenesis, biopoiesis and eobiogenesis. Using dif-
ferent names for spontaneous generation just adds to the con-
fusion, not to the understanding. Biogenesis rather means life
coming from living matter. In contrast to spontaneous genera-
tion, the law of biogenesis is a thoroughly documented law
of biology (cf. Sagan 1974; Moore 1976, p. 65). The
natural-scientific abiogenesis, in turn, is the collection of nu-
merous particular protobiological theories – the proposition
on the gradual, process way of the emergence of life in the
Universe, being realized through the gradual and complex
physico-chemical transformations – is common for all of them10.
Depending on where the particular stages of this process take
place, we may talk about the earthly, cosmic or bilinear abiogen-
esis (as far as bilinear abiogenesis is concerned, its initial stages
are thought to take place also in the cosmic space, but ultimately
the life emerged on the Earth). Therefore, they differ in their
natural-scientific level, particularly in the place of the process
of the emergence of life, while the same philosophical element
may occur in each of them. That is why, taking into account
the content of particular theories of the origin of life, we may dis-
tinguish three fundamental types of philosophical level underly-
ing the natural-scientific views (the implications from them),
hence, it is possible to propose three variants of abiogenesis the-
ory: (1) meta-information abiogenesis – the theories, which refer
to some form of universal integration principle, i.e. to ‘the de-
sign’, ‘the eternal order’, the law governing the course of all the
processes within the Universe11 or the theories assuming the eter-
nal existence of biological information12; (2) mechanistic-chance
(eventist) abiogenesis – the theories based on the assumption of
the chance emergence of the first living thing, because of the
10 Protobiology is the field of modern scientific research on the origin of
life (biogenesis), which was founded in the mid-20th century. It is primar-
ily based on the idea of chemical evolution, although not all the theories
proposed in the framework of protobiology respect consequently all phi-
losophical and scientific premises mentioned idea (Dose 1984).
11 For instance, theories proposed by: G. Wald (theory of designed
Universe). The main idea of this theory is that over the course of evolu-
tion – in particular, the creation of life – led eternally existing reason: it
was not a product, but a pattern, source and condition of physical reality
(‘. . . mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrow in the evolution of life,
has existed always, as the matrix, the source and condition of physical
reality – that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff’
(Wald 1984, p. 1). Also theory proposed by H.D. Kenyon (biochemical
predestination).
12 For instance, theories proposed by: C. Portelli (theory of meta-
information sources); P. Fong (static-dynamic theory). Preexistence of
information conceived as an immaterial force ruling the passive matter
is a necessary postulate theories of this type. Shared is the concept of
the very nature of this universal force, understood as an ‘order’ or
‘information’.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
Where/when/how did life begin? 5
lucky coincidence of natural circumstances and physico-
chemical regularities favourable for the emergence of life13; (3)
abiogenesis as a self-organization of matter – theories, which
adopt the evolutional way of understanding the emergence of
qualitatively new systems and which point to regularities govern-
ing the process of their development, among which the crucial
element is the natural tendency of matter to organize itself into
more and more complex structures14. All three types of abiogen-
esis theories may be further differentiated, but this falls beyond
the scope of the present paper (Ługowski 2008a; Schwartz 2009).
Placed in an historical context abiogenesis may be understood as
the development and transformation of the idea of ‘naive’ spon-
taneous generation, because there still present the basic idea of
the transformation of inanimate matter to animate one.
What concerns the mode of explanations of the transition
non-life into life in the current theories of the origin of life a
great variety of solution have been observed: chance informa-
tion of the first information-carrying molecule; chance forma-
tion of the first autocatalytic loop; physico–chemical
interactions; mineral prescription; the universal law of integra-
tion; self-organization explained in physico-chemical terms;
biochemical self-organization; environmental self-organization
spin-glass formalism; broken symmetry and the abiogenesis as a
cosmos-earth joint venture. The differences between the the-
ories, however, as well as current controversies in the scientific
community (RNA-world first, thioester world first, inorganic
pyrophosphate first, proteinoid first, primitive metabolism
first, thermosythesis first, etc.) were shown to be dependent of
several much more profound methodological and ontological
assumptions underlying the origin of life studies.
The last of the four groups of the origin of life theories, i.e.
the pre-existence of life in conjunction with neopanspermia,
also dates back to ancient times, but its contemporary versions
13 We may put the following abiogenesis theories to this group (a.o.): H.
M. Muller (theory of chance-beginning of gene); G. Schramm (theory of
the accidental formation of the self-replication); A.C. Elitzur (theory of
the first living molecule). The last mentioned is one of the most vivid
manifestations of physicalism, which in this form in protobiology in
the last decades is a rarity. A. Elitzur is, moreover, partially aware of
that when formulates an alternative: biogenesis – physical laws or ‘living
force’, and when states about all the other theories (in particular belong-
ing to the mainstream ‘cell first’ but not only) that are based on the as-
sumptions of the teleological Bergsonian and Teilhardian provenance
and on the belief that there is a law forcing nature to produce life – an
intrinsic principle nature that directs inanimate matter towards the for-
mation of life (Elitzur 1994).
14 We may put the following abiogenesis theories to this group (a.o.):
A. Rudenko (theory of self-development open catalytic systems);
H. Kuhn (theory of self-organization of proto-biological systems);
M. Eigen (theory of self-organization of matter); B.-O. Küppers (theory
of the origin of biological information); S.A. Kauffman (theory of the
self-replicating molecular systems); Ch. de Duve (thioester world theory).
At the core of the theories of self-organization is a manner of understand-
ing development in accordance with which we can talk about the evolu-
tionary emergence of qualitatively new layouts. At the same time both
the old and new systems have been characterized not only by identifying
their structure, but primarily by the accuracy of their development, so
processual. The principle of molecular self-organization is a normal re-
sult of the earlier stages of the prebiotic evolution, but its effects are new
patterns of development, typical for biological evolution.
IP address: 131.172.36.29
6 A. Świeżyński
Fig. 2. Relation between types of theories.
not only assume that life may move through the Universe at
some specific historical moment, but also reached, the Earth,
in its very simple form where it found the circumstances favor-
able for its development. Recent research focuses on the speci-
fic circumstances and mechanisms responsible for the
wandering of life throughout the universe (Seckbach et al.
2004; Schulze-Makuch & Irwin 2006; Thomas et al. 2006).
The last years brought some direct evidence that the process
of chemical evolution in the molecules of cosmic dust con-
tained in the nuclei of comets reached already quite advanced
stages. Inorganic fraction of cometary dust contains the cata-
lysts suitable for creating from the organic substances in con-
nection with water all the required precursors of the molecules
of proteins and nucleic acids. Moreover, the dust particles, due
to their porosity, create the natural compartments for the evol-
ving molecules of organic substances, replacing in this way the
protocellular membrane. What is lacking in the planetary line
of prebiological evolution is the molecule of proto-RNA rela-
tively separated from the environment. Exactly this may be of-
fered by the cometary ‘male’ line of prebiotic evolution. A
bilinear scenario of the origin of life resulting from the combi-
nation of characteristics of both lines of chemical evolution, di-
vergent from physical and complementary from biological
point of view, is satisfactory when thermodynamics is con-
cerned, whereas no other formerly presented monolinear con-
ceptions could fulfil this requirement. According to this
conception for the transition from simple organic substances
to primitive cells very short time is required, which correspond
with the lately accumulated paleobiochemical evidence in fa-
vour of the ‘geological eternity of life’. This is the first
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
substantial conception of prebiological evolution referring to
the direct empiric evidences. Probably we will never get any
samples of the primary terrestrial atmosphere or of the primary
ocean, none the less we have results of direct analysis of the in-
organic and organic fractions of cometary dust. The last cir-
cumstances may not be so important from philosophical
point of view as the former, but it will probably have consider-
able value for the scientists.
Landscape of views on the origin of life: relations
between types of theories
The scheme outlined by the proposed classification of the types
theories explaining the origin of life acquires additional impor-
tance when we consider interrelations between particular types
of conceptions. These interrelations exist not only between par-
ticular types of conceptions within one of the areas mentioned
(metaphysical or scientific) and between the types of concep-
tions concerning the problem of the emergence of life on the
Earth and in the Universe (respectively: M ↔ S; E ↔ U – ‘ver-
tical’; ‘horizontal’), but also between the conceptions coming
from different areas (M ↔ E; M ↔ U; S ↔ E; S ↔ U –
‘vertical-horizontal’). All these interrelations allow us to wit-
ness not only the historical development of human thought
on the origin of life but also the interrelations existing between
various modes of thinking about the emergence of life (meta-
physical, scientific, philosophical-scientific) (Fig. 2).
When examining the interrelations just mentioned, we may
note that:
IP address: 131.172.36.29

(1) Adopting the metaphysical conception of pre-existence of
life leads towards accepting either its age-long character or
its creation by a supernatural force (outside the Earth) or
cosmic spontaneous generation; such a solution, in turn,
forces us to introduce the conception of panspermia (nowa-
days, neopanspermia) as the way of reaching the Earth by
the existing/created/generated life.
(2) Adopting the conception of creation, as far as the origin of
life on the Earth is concerned, is equivalent to adopting a
conception of creation as a whole, and the act of creation
may be direct or indirect one. This second version of crea-
tion is possible to complementary reconciliation on the
basis of philosophy with the theory of abiogenesis, because
indirect act of creation can be understood as the hidden
mediation of supernatural action in the processes of nature
and by the nature.
(3) The pre-existence of life in conjunction with neopansper-
mia requires referring also to the cosmic version of abio-
genesis; yet, we may refer to the explanations, which are
strictly metaphysical in character: i.e. to the creation or
to the age-long character of life or to the cosmic version
of spontaneous generation.
(4) Panspermia is being continued nowadays in the form of
contemporary natural-scientific neopanspermia and can
be consistent both with the scientific theory of abiogenesis
and with the metaphysical ones. Thus transformed idea of
panspermia (neopanspermia) is still useful and helpful for
the proponents of cosmic abiogenesis.
(5) Nowadays, the idea of spontaneous generation finds its
continuation in the natural-scientific abiogenesis theories,
occurring in the form of earthly, cosmic and bilinear abio-
genesis; this relationship is indicated by the presence of the
fundamental proposition on the transformation of the in-
animate matter into the animate one within abiogenesis
theories. Differences lie in the way the mechanism of this
transformation is explained (cf. Farley 1977; Harris
2002). Nowadays explanation of the mechanism and
course of this transformation is the task for protobiology
and its abiogenetic theories.
(6) The direct creation of life might complement the idea of
spontaneous generation as a sudden and spontaneous
transformation of the inanimate matter into the animate
one. The direct creation intervention of God may be re-
sponsible for this transformation, as God makes the inan-
imate matter into the animate one.
(7) The indirect creation of life may complement theories of
abiogenesis, because the latter indicates the complex
physico-chemical process leading towards the emergence
of life, which, from the viewpoint of understanding crea-
tion, may be seen as an indirect creation act. The inter-
mediate elements can be understood as physico-chemical
transformations, which take place in coexistence with the
Creator’s will and involvement.
(8) All three variants of natural-scientific abiogenesis (the
meta-information abiogenesis, the mechanistic-chance
abiogenesis and abiogenesis understood as the self-
organization of matter) may function within each of the
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
Where/when/how did life begin? 7
types of abiogenesis (the earthly, cosmic and bilinear
one) and they may be combined through the idea of pan-
spermia (in the version of neopanspermia) in the case of
cosmic abiogenesis.
Presented above relations demonstrate that there are two fun-
damental trends in the thinking and the searching for the ori-
gins of life: earthly beginnings of life and the cosmic origins of
life. In addition, we can see that the acceptance of particular
solution at the scientific level generates questions of a philoso-
phical nature: what is the essence of these processes that on the
plane of natural regularity enabled the formation of life.
In the presence of a number of competing theories of the ori-
gin of life a ‘philosophical key’ to systematize them referring to
their philosophical assumptions and premises seems to be more
useful and versatile than sorting them by e.g. due to the place of
origin of life or the specific scenarios for its beginning.
Recapitulation
We may draw the following conclusions from the proposed sys-
tematization of the types of the beginning of life conceptions as
well as from the interrelations between them:
(1) The contemporary theories of the origin of life, regardless
of the specific empirical-scientific solution of the main pro-
blem, which they propose, contain in their extra-scientific
(philosophical) level the continuation of either of the two
fundamental ideas concerning the origin of life, i.e. the
spontaneous generation (nowadays in the form of
natural-scientific abiogenesis theory) and/or panspermia
(nowadays, in the form of neopanspermia theory). This is
evident when we analyze assumptions present in these the-
ories and used methodology. The strategies adopted to
seek solutions are often dictated by existing problems
with which existing theories cannot handle. A similar situa-
tion occurred in the 19th century, when the fall of sponta-
neous generation by Pasteur’s experiments resulted in the
necessity to seek a way of other explanations of the origins
of life, and recalled then, among others, to the concept of
panspermia. Currently visible is to draw in the bilinear the-
ories of the origin of life.
(2) Metaphysical conception of indirect creation can be con-
sistent with the philosophical level of each of the three con-
temporary variants of abiogenesis conception as well as
with neopanspermia, whereas this is not the case with the
conception of the age-long character of life. This makes it
possible to seek complementarity between theological and
scientific image of the origin of life.
(3) The philosophical level (philosophical basis) is irreducibly
present in each theory of the origin of life, if it is a theory
and not just a loose collection of scientific findings and re-
sults. At the root of the abiogenesis theories there are three
basic premises: (1) the possibility of primary formation of
the organic compounds; (2) the possibility of further evolu-
tion of these compounds; (3) immutability fundamental
laws of nature over time. Thus we can also say about phi-
losophy of the origin of life. The general situation in the
philosophy of the origin of life is similar to that in
IP address: 131.172.36.29
8 A. Świeżyński
protobiology itself: there is no theory of the origin of life
without problems. The same statements can be made
about the philosophy of protobiology: none has a mono-
poly on truth in this game. To be able to recognize the ‘dua-
lity’ of particular theory on the origin of life, it is necessary
to understand its double philosophical/scientific
genealogy.
(4) The presence of the empirical level and the philosophical
level within the contemporary natural-scientific theories
of the origin of life requires, on the one hand, making the
clear distinction between them (because of their methodo-
logical diversity) but on the other hand, requires the con-
sciousness of their interrelations and conditions, which
are of a great significance for the ultimate and comprehen-
sive solutions of the problem of life’s beginnings15.
(5) The philosophical basis or implication, which is always
present in theories of the origin of life, indicates that
this problem is not just the strictly scientific one; it is a phi-
losophical problem, too; thus it cannot be fully solved
merely through referring to the empirical aspect of
biogenesis16. In philosophical perspective remains question,
how to explain the fact of life. The main problem of biogen-
esis in philosophical aspect becomes the answer to the ques-
tion whether indicated by science material elements and
mechanisms of the natural gradual changes could cause
the emergence of life as a new quality in nature, irreducible
to it antecedents. At this point, it becomes possible different
answers, referring to the accidental (chance) formation of
life, the specific form of the creation of matter, or initial
equipment the matter with the ability to self-organization.
Conclusions
What makes protobiology attractive from philosophical point
of view is its deep internal tension, caused by the duality of its
philosophical roots. Protobiology is born both from the spirit
of the Hegelian and Comte’an metaphysics. And in spite of
several declarations of scientists that it is possible and needed
to be free of metaphysics the question is not how to reject one of
them, but should instead be how to be conscious of both. Only
by keeping in mind such a double philosophical genealogy of
the origins of life studies it is possible to avoid several
15 Ch. de Duve is aware of it, when having examined the views of
J. Monod: ‘What now of Monod’s philosophy, his conclusion that
‘man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity’?
This statement is consistent with its scientific context, but goes beyond
what may be scientifically affirmed, considering our physical inability
to explore most of the universe’s immensity for signs of life, whether in-
telligent or not. What the statement betrays is Jacques Monod’s affinity
for the philosophy of the absurd of the existentialists who strongly influ-
enced French thinking in his time, especially Albert Camus, who shares
with the Greek philosopher Democritus the distinction of being cited in
the epigraph of Monod’s book’ (De Duve 2007, p. 3157).
16 It does not take a scientific value of the contemporary theories of the
origin of life, because these theories: (1) play an explaining role; (2) lead
to predictions; (3) suggest new experiments; (4) have the characteristic of
economics thinking; (5) strive to be more and more empirical (Simard
1958).
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
paradoxes: order without order, information without informa-
tion, beginning without beginning, commonly claimed to be in-
herent to all theories and to overcome some stereotypes, like e.
g. on the crisis of the chemical evolution of life theory caused
by the discovery of geological eternity of life.
The question of philosophical basis for the origin of life the-
ories and discussions on philosophical implications show that
the view, according to which the ‘mature’ science may (and
should) be free from philosophical conditions, the view pro-
mulgated seriously by the professional philosophers of positi-
vist orientation, still finds its supporters among the researchers
themselves. The very act of initiating the scientific research of
biogenesis constituted the philosophical turning point in two
fundamental aspects. In its ontological aspect, it required res-
ignation from an understanding matter as a passive substance.
In its methodological and epistemological aspect, it meant a
shift from the scientific patterns connected with classical phy-
sics and a move towards the patterns proposed by evolutional
biology. The ontological foundation of contemporary research
on biogenesis is the attitude known as processual holism
(Ługowski 2010, pp. 170–171ff). The essence of processual hol-
ism consists of: (1) autodynamism, i.e. the conception of active
matter; (2) holism, i.e. an interpretation of nature as a system
with interrelated elements affecting one another; (3) histori-
cism, i.e. the fully historical approach towards the evolutional
process that takes into account the variability of the elements
and mechanisms of evolution17.
Theories remain theories but the significance of the changes
that have taken place in the evolution of scientific knowledge
should not be undermined. Natural scientists themselves, (at
least those with the best philosophical awareness, such as Ch.
de Duve, S.A. Kauffman) express the essence of processual hol-
ism in the following formula: life is the natural emergent prop-
erty of the matter. The assumption that life emerged from matter
based on physical mechanisms of self-organization is not a ‘pas-
sive ingredient’ of all these theories. Understanding this formula
is important for anyone who seeks to comprehend the place of
living creatures (and his own) within the process of universal
evolution. This is also essential from the viewpoint of science de-
velopment. Unfortunately, not all scientists realize it. There are
also those, who consciously and deliberately construct the bio-
genesis theory on the basis of opposite assumptions (a chance, a
meta-information, a design – for instance: J. Monod, E. Mayr,
F. Crick; Fry 1995, p. 391ff).
Not all the debatable issues and differences, as far as the ori-
gin of life is concerned, should be treated as equally important,
in the sense that this or that solution may affect further course
of the research upon biogenesis. For instance, the dispute over
the place of the emergence of life (and there is a wide range of
proposals here: from the grains of cosmic dust, through atmo-
spheric aerosols and clay minerals, up to hydrothermal vent
17 ‘Three aspects can be distinguished with regard to evolutionary the-
ory: (1) the postulate that evolution has occurred, (2) the detailed phylo-
genic reconstruction, i.e. the story of evolution and (3) the explanation of
evolutionary processes by a theory (or system of theories) . . .’ (Sattler
1986, pp. 207–208).
IP address: 131.172.36.29

under the bottom of the sea) does not necessarily lead towards
the selection one option and elimination of all others. Such
controversies should be described as inessential. However, it
seems important whether the researchers will be willing to ac-
cept in a conscious manner the fundamental premise of the re-
search on biogenesis, i.e. the claim for the ability of matter to
organize itself (self-organization) or maybe, negating their re-
search practice, they will accept the following maxim:
‘Protobiology is a science, which entirely dispenses with philo-
sophy’ (implicitly: ‘other than that of mine’).
Acknowledgements
I thank editor David Dunér and the anonymous referees
for many helpful comments.
References
Arrhenius, S. (1909). The Life of the Universe: As Conceived By Man From the
Earliest Ages to the Present Time. Harper and Bros, London.
Chela-Flores, J. (2011). The Science of Astrobiology: A Personal View on
Learning to Read the Book of Life. Springer, Heidelberg – New York –
Dordrecht – London.
Clark, B.C. (1988). Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 18, 209–238.
De Duve, Ch. (2007). Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 64, 3149–3158.
Dose, K. (1984). Molecular Evolution and Protobiology, pp. 1–10. Plenum Press,
New York – London.
Elitzur, A.C. (1994). J. Theor. Biol. 168, 429–459.
Farley, J. (1977). The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to
Oparin. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore – London.
Fry, I. (1995). Biol. Philos. 10, 389–417.
Harris, H. (2002). Thinks Come to Life: Spontaneous Generation Revisited.
Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York.
Kamminga, H. (1988). Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 18, 1–11.
Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection
in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 01 Aug 2016
Where/when/how did life begin? 9
Krzymowski, R. (1897). Die Natur 46, 221–222, 229–232.
Levy, S. (1993). Artificial Life: A Report from the Frontier Where Computer
meet Biology. Random House, New York.
Ługowski, W. (2002). Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 32, 517–518.
Ługowski, W. (2005). W poszukiwaniu istoty życia, pp. 111–124.
Wydawnictwo UKSW, Warszawa.
Ługowski, W. (2008a). Philosophy and Biogenesis. Wydawnictwo Arboretum,
Wrocław.
Ługowski, W. (2008b). Dialogue Univers. 18, 207–218.
Ługowski, W. (2010). Filozoficzne i naukowo-przyrodnicze elementy obrazu
świata, pp. 170–190. Wydawnictwo UKSW, Warszawa.
Moore, J.N. (1976). Questions and Answers on Creation/Evolution. Baker,
Grand Rapids.
Oparin, A.I., Pasynskiĭ, A.G., Braunshteĭn, A.E., Pavlovskaya, T.E., Clark,
F. & Synge, R.L.M. (1959). In Proceedings of the First International
Symposium on ‘The Origin of Life’ held at Moscow 19–24 August 1957.
Pergamon Press.
Ruse, M. (1997). J. Theor. Biol. 187, 473–482.
Sagan, C. (1974). Orig. Life 5, 529.
Sattler, R. (1986). Biophilosophy: Analytic and Holistic Perspectives.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York – Tokyo.
Schröder-Lembke, G. (1982). Neue Deutsche Biographie, p. 154. Duncker
and Humbolt, Berlin.
Schulze-Makuch, D. & Irwin, L.N. (2006). Life in the Universe: Expectations
and Constraints. Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg.
Schwartz, A.W. (2009). Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 39, 179–392.
Seckbach, J., Chela-Flores, J., Owen, T. & Raulin, F. (2004). Life in the
Universe: From the Miller Experiment to the Search for Life on other
Worlds. Kluwer, Dordrecht – Boston – London.
Shiller, B.M. (2004). Origin of Life: The 5th Option. Trafford Publ, Victoria –
Crewe.
Simard, E. (1958). Le nature et la portée de la méthode scientifique. Les Presses
de l’Université Laval, Québec – Paris.
Strick, J.E. (2002). Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over
Spontaneous Generation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Thomas, P.J., Hicks, R.D., Chyba, C.F. & McKay, C.P. (2006). Comets and
the Origin and Evolution of Life. Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg.
Wald, G. (1984). Int. J. Quant. Chem. 11, 1–15.
Wickramasinghe, N.Ch. (2010). The Biological Big Bang: Panspermia and the
Origins of Life. Cosmology Science Publ, Cambridge.
IP address: 131.172.36.29