1.  Is there such a thing as a "simple" form of life?   How simple is the simplest form of life?  Could the simplest form of life known today have arisen de novo by chance processes?
 

2.  What is the content of, basis for, and motivation behind the field of "astrobiology"?
 

3.  What does it mean for scientists to "create life in the laboratory"?  Compare cloning, artifical insemination, etc. to the Miller-Urey type experiments.
 

4.  Compare Prof. Braterman's view of the chemical chirality problem with the views of Kenyon, Poenie, Denton.
 

5.  Analyze Prof. de Duve's statement that the fact that "We're doing it all the time" encourages us that a naturalistic explanation will be found for how nonliving chemicals could have been fashioned into the DNA, RNA and proteins necessary for life.
 

6.  Curtis and Barnes write that proteinoid microspheres "suggest the kinds of processes that could have given rise to self-sustaining protein entities".  What do you think they might be referring to?  Compare their statement with Denton's view that "Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive."
 

7.  RNA world - what are the issues with RNA acting both as a replicator and as a catalyst?
 

8.  Explain why some experts claim that the origin of the building blocks of life, the monomers, could be accounted for on the early earth whereas others, such as Robert Shapiro, claim that the monomers would not have been present in sufficient quantities.
 

9.  The equation "gas + energy = DNA" is the centerpiece of the origin-of-life exhibit at our Natural History Museum.  Is this science or philosophy?
 
 

10.  J. Bennett, in his recent book  On the Cosmic Horizon, makes the following statements  (pg 170 and 171).  "A guiding principle of science is that the burden of proof falls on those who claim new discoveries."   "According to the principles of science, we should not accept the hypothesis of alien visits without strong evidence."  ...   "Perhaps because they have no strong hand to show, UFO enthusiasts often take the antiscientific approach of placing the burden of proof on those who don't believe them." ... "  Whereas a single piece of indisputable evidence could prove that they do exist, an absence of evidence can never be used to prove that they don't exist."

Where do you think the burden of proof should lie in this debate about the origin of life?
 
 

11.  J. Bennett, in his recent book  On the Cosmic Horizon, makes the following statement  (pg 178-179):  "Thus we reach an interesting paradox:  plausible arguments suggest that a galactic civilization should already exist, yet we have so far found no evidence of such a civilization."

What are those plausible arguments and are they best viewed as scientific or philosophical?