Moral Molecules?

Darwin solved nothing – there is still a elephant in the room.

A careful enquiry and assessment of competing world views.

It seems that one of the most pervasive concerns harboured by people from every race and from the beginning of recorded history relates to the meaning of life. If any.

Fundamentally, the worldview which we might hold relates to the sense of purpose we perceive. In turn, the foundation anchoring the framework into which our sense of purpose fits is dependant on our understanding of where we come from. The issues concerning the origin of everything are therefore of central importance to a satisfactory understanding of any purpose or meaning which may apply to human existence.

Fundamental questions arise from the apparent conflict between what is seen as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of life - the naturalistic approach and a view which invokes some input from an external transcendent source – a theistic position.

Tracing the history of ideas is fascinating and it is sometimes helpful at a theoretical level to try and classify the intellectual framework various individuals have proposed in order to address some of the basic questions which relate to the possibility of meaning to our lives.

Broadly speaking, it would be fair to state that various patterns have emerged in the last few hundred years in terms of approaching this topic. The central disagreement between the basic worldviews which tackle origins and meaning involves the possibility that there may be a super intelligent and incredibly powerful being behind the whole process. The most recent popular approach to this argument has been the contribution of Richard Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion.” In this work, and indeed others published over the last few decades, the themes again cover the ground which is addressed in the various classical arguments* about the existence of an all powerful, highly intelligent being. For Dawkins and those like him, the answer is fairly straightforward. One central theme is the nature of faith. Faith is not based on any credible evidence. The superstructure which is built upon such faith in a supernatural being is therefore not credible and the whole problem can simply be swatted aside on that account. Science on the other hand is entirely evidence based and is therefore true and trustworthy. It therefore forms the basis for a correct understanding of the origin and meaning of life.

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. The problem for the naturalistic worldview is that while its proponents claim that there is an evidence base it is unfortunate for them that the arguments in the superstructure are often not logically consistent. We’’ look at some of these arguments in more detail in due course. At base however the problem is that to develop the story of a natural explanation for everything is not supported by any reasonable understanding of the available scientific data. Such a story demands quite mind-boggling assumptions and suppositions and some of these which seem to be taken “on the nod” by the scientific community involve an uncanny disdain for common sense and logic. I will make sure that some of these areas are taken apart and exposed so that a clear understanding of the underlying thought processes are fully revealed. One important component of the big picture is, of course, the story which was originally proposed by Charles Darwin in 1809 and subsequently developed to sustain the complexity and diversity of life. At first glance it does seem elegant and satisfactory but a close inspection shows that it is utterly dependant on a range of fascinating mechanisms which have to be forced to fit. We need to look at these myths and blow them apart and that is exactly what this book will set out to do. It is high time that a proper challenge is mounted to a mind set which has become widely accepted but which increasing numbers of scientific thinkers and philosophers have become uneasy to say the least.

What is a worldview?

A worldview is all about meaning. People desperately seek some sense of meaning in life. It is almost as though they are hardwired to address this question. Clearly one answer may be that there is no ultimate purpose to our existence. The possibility that there is some underlying discoverable purpose is the factor which best explains why having a logical approach to the question resulting in a discernable worldview is reasonable. A worldview therefore addresses the question of whether there is any meaning in existence. To advance towards a set of answers to the questions which inevitably emanate from that problem means that we need to tackle such extreme issues as origin and destiny. We need to find some understanding of the nature of humanity along the way – where do the concepts of truth, morality and dignity arise? How can we explain beauty, art, music, language, altruism, love, sacrifice and so on? The view we adopt to best explain our world needs to satisfy some tests of truth in terms of fitting the facts, being internally consistent, being credible and as a result it will provide a means of addressing the more difficult human problems which we encounter. It will help to anchor our understanding of truth to a system which can be used to explain the world and to define it’s problems and in the end to lead towards answers which will satisfy the big “Why” questions which life habitually brings forward. Science, technology and engineering are pretty good at dealing with the “How” questions but shrink as soon as the “Why” appears over the horizon. Stephen Hawking, in a masterful and popular little book “A Brief History of Time” picks up this theme. Right at the end of his superb analysis he made reference to the “Why” issue. It is as if there is an unwritten, hard wired yearning for humans to tackle the possibility of meaning to existence. In coming to an understanding of the all the mechanisms behind the origin and operation of our universe, Hawking reckons we can begin to approach the issue of “why we and the universe exist.”

In the culture of the day it is considered sophisticated to hold an open minded, mature and tolerant post-modern view. The notion that truth might be rooted solely in human reason is now discredited and it is trendy to accept that one cannot really be sure of anything, truth is not a commodity which finds any real home and meaning in life should not even be countenanced. I can remember the jaw dropping moment when the most politically powerful man on the planet was being interviewed. It was September 1998 and the US television networks were given access to a videotaped interview from the previous month where President Clinton was questioned by prosecutors about the detailed nature of his affair with Monica Lewinsky and whether he had previously lied under oath. Clinton was visibly defensive and distinctly uncomfortable and in essence built part of his defence on an elaborate attempt to question the meaning of the word “is.” “It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” It seems fairly clear that “is” is what relates to what is real and true and an attempt to redefine it or question it’s actual meaning is to introduce a false reality.

This is what happens when relativism takes control of our thinking. This indeed is characteristic of post modern thinking. One has to question reality relative to what? It is not hard to see why he was widely regarded as distorting the character of his relationship in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences of the impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. A worldview based on relativistic principles is one which cannot stand up to the tests of logic and verifiability which I have outlined. It is in essence a self defeating philosophy. Any question of right and wrong in a relativistic world becomes difficult to discuss. If morality is a matter of choice and has no agreed and defined anchor then there can be no solid ground for making a determination that any moral standard is acceptable or not. No matter how offensive or unsavoury an activity might be, it is impossible to mount a reasoned attack on that position if moral standards are moving. We may hold an intuitive position that something is morally justifiable but if others hold different intuitions, who is to say what is right? It removes any grounds for accusation or challenge. If that is not a recipe for social disaster I fail to see what is!

There is a need to address the yearning for a sense of meaning. But the answers must meet a standard and be measured against that standard. Otherwise, like a relativist view, they will not come close to being a satisfying set of answers. We yearn for meaning but we also need coherence and a system which is consistent with the observed evidence. We owe it to ourselves.

The nature of science.

The starting point – what are the assumptions?

Everything should be ruled in!

All the possible options to underpin a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life need to be on the table. It is extremely difficult if not impossible, to imagine any scientific assessment which is not anchored in some way to a set of ideas commonly found in the cultural framework from which it arises. Scientists have been guilty of flavouring their approach with a set of assumptions which predictably have had a significant influence on the available or possible conclusions.

Within a modern naturalistic framework for example, we might well ask the following question. Is every possible mechanism for the origin of life allowable from the outset or is the very idea of a transcendent designer ruled “inadmissible?” For the open minded, any reasonable candidate idea would have to be available for the formulation of a hypothesis. Some would take the position right away that bringing a god figure into the field of play simply means that one can rely on some fanciful supernatural explanation when the difficulties arise - the so called god of the gaps. Dawkins would argue that using god to trump that unsolved dilemma fails to solve the problem – indeed he believes that it avoids even addressing the problem in the first place. Equally some of the wilder squirming to which some writers resort brings out some suggestions which are at least as bizarre. The idea of life arising elsewhere in the universe and somehow being transported to this planet is at least as fanciful – the (so called panspermia story). One is reminded of the famous “baloney detection” notion attributed to Carl Sagan in his book “ The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan . I like to think that my baloney detector is reasonably tuned. Some may disagree but my plea at this stage is that you follow the trail of evidence and argument laid out here before jumping to conclusion or judgment!

The truth and how to test for it

Ultimately if something is true it needs to conform to reality. It should be logically consistent, empirically testable and verifiable and it should fit where appropriate with our experience or our sensory appreciation and should thus be satisfying to an enquiring mind. The problem is that the evidence can be “read” and presented in various ways. This amounts to a form of scientific public relations. The analogy comes from the world of politics and the idea of “spin” was, I think, first advanced by Marlin Fitzwater (in his memoirs – “Call the Briefing!) who was the White House Press Secretary during the Reagan administration. His definition is interesting – spin is the “weaving of a thread of truth into the fabric of a lie.” The result can be appealing, convincing, persuasive and wrong! The selective accumulation of information to support a particular position, the clever subliminal effects of a carefully chosen analogy and even the sentence construction which can disguise the impossibility of supporting a conclusion are just some of the techniques that have been used on both sides of the divide and I am dedicated to steer clear of this trick.

It is essential that we do more than simply have a stab at finding the truth. Clearly people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe – however it makes no sense to hitch a set of beliefs to something which cannot satisfy the tests of truth I proposed at the beginning of this section. This is especially important when it comes to a worldview which will then be the basis for the kind of lifestyle and approach to dealing with issues which must therefore follow.

Dawkins repeatedly claims that he passionately interested in the truth. He also fervently believes that there is no supernatural god. Furthermore he has stated in a radio interview that “ If someone comes up with evidence that goes the other way, I'll be the first to change my mind.” [ RTE radio].

There has been serious ideological clouding of the truth from both sides of the argument and the matter of sorting the “truth” from the “science” needs attention to detail. It is important therefore to carefully evaluate the nature of any conclusion in the light of the under pinning evidence and the source, volume, reliability, authenticity and credibility of that evidence. The falsifiability of the evidence is also relevant. It is important to establish if the conclusion can be verified or disproved. As far as the possibility of spin is concerned – we should be alert to ask if there a sub text or hidden agenda or even a set of assumptions which rule out a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation.

For example it would be quite unacceptable to simply take the approach that “God did it” in addressing an insurmountable hurdle. It is equally unacceptable to posit that “chance” is responsible. We must bring the factual sources into the open and then draw the logical conclusions. It is my contention that this is possible and reasonable even in dealing with some of the areas where we must rely on reason alone to bridge the gap left by unavailable data – more of that later.

“To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”

(Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained )

George F. R. Ellis

Richard Dawkins

Micahel Behe

What can science legitimately address.

The idea that science will ultimately answer the issues which thus far have been impossible to answer is no more than an empty hope. It, in itself, is almost a religious belief system. The origin of the very issues which are of most meaning and importance to humans beings lie out with the legitimate realm of science. The existence or these immaterial entities needs to be considered separately.

Some might hold the view that in this sophisticated scientific age – the notion of god has been scientifically disproved. This however, is completely simplistic. The scientific method cannot even directly address that question, far less prove that god does not exist. Because the scientific approach demands that a hypothesis can only be addressed on the basis of certain findings – it is the inevitable consequence that using that method one cannot actually prove the non existence of anything unless the existence of that entity is in itself a contradiction. So let’s step back – could science by failing to provide a reason to accept the existence of god lead us to conclude that there is no such good reason? Well such a conclusion is exactly the basis which leads the “new atheists” to their belief system. From a scientific perspective

Some will argue along the line that belief in god demands faith and faith is a kind of process of non thinking. Dawkins in “The God Delusion” provides only a limited number of possible explanations for those who believe that god exists – that the person is not thinking logically and is deluded, is plain stupid or perhaps is even evil. He provides the cunning analogy of the notion that those who hold a belief like that have in some way been infected by a kind of god virus. Of course this is spin and storytelling which is based on a dogmatic assumption and has absolutely no evidence base whatsoever.

The approach which is followed and adopted by many is to say that one must be able to show that a natural law actually explains everything that exists. However we need to pause here and take stock I can think of a range of things which explicitly do not behave according to natural laws.

If you think about a range of abstract or immaterial things one has to ask first of all if these non material entities actually exist. Let’s consider some of these – they are all important but do they really exist?

Are non-material things real?

The question arises here as to whether things which cannot be appreciated by the senses are actually real. It seems that there are many things which seem to be real enough but could not be subjected to any form of scientific investigation. If entities do not have any physical reality, does it mean that they do not exist? The families of entities which fall into this category include the natural laws themselves, consciousness, numbers, concepts and ideas, emotion, friendship, even morality.

It is evident that these non physical things are not just ideas or concepts. Some have suggested that the things which bring most value and satisfaction to our lives are not material. Love, values, ideas, joy – all are real and all exist beyond the realm of science. The argument about the existence of God exists in that same realm – it is beyond the legitimate realm of science and just because it cannot be made to fit with the natural laws, that in no way discredits its potential reality.

An evolutionary approach based on Darwinism or neo-Darwinism cannot possibly be correct.

Before we begin

I think it would be helpful to give a brief description of just one aspect of the molecular detail which is essential to the existence of life as we understand it today. The reason for this is to establish a justifiable sense of awe which rightly arises when we begin to appreciate the amazing nano-technology which exists at the level of the tiny molecular machines which are integral to life. Others have explored this area very well and some good examples were brought to prominence in the writing of Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box. His latest book [The Edge of Evolution] takes the whole issue a stage further and not only exposes the incredible fine tuning required in biological systems but also shows why, by looking at the evidence, it is beyond reasonable doubt and virtually beyond reason itself to figure how by any neo-Darwinian mechanism, complex sub-cellular factories and building sites could be produced.

As a medical student I was faced with the mind boggling complexity of the biochemical equations which formed the basis of intermediary metabolism. These systems, which deal with the processing of chemical nutrients and the production of energy demonstrate an elegance and apparent design of outrageous ingenuity and cunning. To examine a somewhat different and more fundamentally important system one might usefully look at the way our coded genetic material is handled at molecular level. As we compile this detail – bear in mind the target issue here which is to find an explanation of where all this order and complexity came from. Could it be the product of spontaneous generation followed ultimately by random mutation and natural selection or do we need to posit the input of intelligence. This latter point will be the focus of our discussion a little later but first let us admire the machinery which makes us what we are.

“I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic code - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work.”

Francis Crick; Nobel Lecture on the Genetic Code

The biochemical machinery which really caught my attention was the molecule which forms the basis of the genetic code – DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. It will turn out as no surprise that in his Nobel prize acceptance speech Francis Crick– who with Jim Watson sorted out the first clear understanding of the structure of DNA, referred to the molecule as the "genetic code."

This amazing double helical structure has the principal role of storing the vital information which, when decoded gives rise to the structures and processes resulting in virtually all the ordered complexity in the living world. It acts like a template, for example, in protein synthesis which is one of its best known roles. The template allows the production of complementary lengths of RNA which in turn, yields the ingenious assembly of amino acid chains to manufacture protein molecules. The molecular machinery involved in the entire production process has a mind boggling complexity and elegance – especially when one builds in an understanding of the cellular economy, control mechanisms and the need to respond to the microscopic environmental pressures which require handling for life to proceed on an even keel. More of that detail later.

The essential requirement for information

So what are we to make of this genetic code? Is the genetic detail which provides the blueprint for all life based on a pattern derived by a combination of chance mutation and natural selection or is there evidence of design; an actual, meaningful code in the molecular machinery? There are many examples of elaborate patterns which occur naturally. Some amazingly intricate structures and processes can result. If one looks at the crystalline structure of individual flakes of snow – they show staggering complexity and incredibly detailed unique patterns. These result, of course from the particular combinations of moisture, movement and temperature in the prevailing atmospheric conditions and the output, while appealing and often beautiful, bears no hint of any underlying purpose or meaning. Similarly if one looks at the crystalline structure of various materials, one can often see amazing, apparent designs and the detailed and regular nature of the atomic arrangements result from the individual characteristics of the constituent materials. At the macroscopic level we see all sorts of patterns in nature. The recurring patterns which produce the recognizable and (sometimes) predictable weather conditions, volcanoes and earthquakes provide other dramatic examples. For intricacy – go underground and have a look at the patterns carved out by the movement of water and the amazing complex and striking structures which result from the correct combination of physical forces, water, rock construction and composition and one can observe scenarios like one finds in Kent’s Cavern in Devon. In every example cited so far – these patterns exist as a result of blind physical forces and circumstances. There is no other rhyme or reason to the production of natural patterns like these. While they may be wonderful – even awe inspiring they have no particular significance beyond themselves. They are not meaningful in any other way. They have, for example, no symbolic significance.

DNA on the other hand does have significance beyond itself. It is a kind of plan for the organism for which it is the code. It is like a road map with an entire range of additional bells and whistles! To continue with the comparative analogy, road maps for example do not occur as a result of blind physical forces. They represent an alternative reality. Take a Google map for example. It can be demonstrated as a simple plan representing the actual terrain with all its characteristics. Merging the two images together indicates exactly how the “plan” represents and communicates detail about something beyond itself. The crucial difference with any such symbolic form of communication whether numerical, literary, graphical or musical – in each case the pattern symbolizes something beyond itself. More crucially, the pattern shows the capability to communicate and represent something beyond itself. Just as the written word in any language has various structures and rules embodied in its structure – the alphabet, the sentence construction and rules of grammar leading to the communication of information, so for DNA the nucleotide bases, genes and their control and the “meaning” of protein production or complex control mechanisms show exactly the same characteristics of a language.

It should be self evident that a language is always the product of a will to communicate. There is always meaning. Without meaning, there may be patterns but no information. There must be something in addition to the matter and energy and that something is an immaterial quality independent of matter and energy. It is intelligence or will and it is a prerequisite for information to be transmitted. DNA has quite rightly been considered a genetic code. It is absolutely stuffed with information. As a language it must have come from a mind; from an intelligent source. There is no language which breaks that rule.

It seems amazing to me that, for all their brilliance, Watson and Crick appeared not to step back from the basic molecular structures to ask where the information may have come from in the first place. That is perhaps one of the most significant examples of the hippopotamus in the room.

Let’s have a look at the origin of life in a little more detail.

The origin of life - a naturalistic view

This is a little difficult because no one was around to observe exactly what happened. However we are not short of speculative answers. The notion which seems most prevalent is that in some way the first simplistic life forms generated as a result of the coming together of the correct ingredients in just the right conditions. It is again, astonishing to me that intelligent people can, with a scientific frame of mind envisage this against the background of our modern understanding of what would be involved. There is, after all, no such thing as a simplistic life form. Every single variety of living being is astonishingly complex. To imagine that the first living cell was generated from non living material and all the necessary structural components, control and transport mechanisms, energy delivery and fuel utilization apparatus not to mention the requirement to fend off assault from a potentially hostile environment and the small matter of enabling the whole business to replicate itself and thus procreate is neither logically consistent or empirically viable - even from a theoretical point of view. It is little more than a completely fanciful story which not only lacks evidence – it evidently runs counter to any understanding we have of natural laws in the real physical and chemical world.

The most famous attempt to demonstrate that organic material could be generated from simple inorganic compounds in laboratory conditions was the so called Miller – Urey experiment carried out in Chicago in 1953. In essence the investigators took hydrogen, water, ammonia and methane as their substrates and in an arrangement assumed to represent the prevailing conditions on the early earth they were able to show that basic organic molecules could be produced from simple inorganic precursors. Even the proponents of this idea would be forced to conclude that to even think about this in the same arena as the origin of life is pushing the interpretation of the significance of this a long way beyond what the evidence will bear!

What Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did was quite clever. They constructed an apparatus with a closed system of glass tubes and flasks. The water was heated to yield water vapour and the resulting “atmosphere” was influenced by sparks to simulate lightning. On cooling they noted that, having run the experimental conditions for a week, about a tenth of the carbon within the system was now found in the form of organic chemicals including 13 of the 22 varieties of amino acids which are the essential building blocks of protein. While some of the varieties of the amino acids would not, as it turns out, be usable biologically others do exist in natural protein. This work almost certainly spawned other ideas as to the components of the early atmosphere and other groups played around with different recipes and were able to concoct circumstances which allowed the elaboration of more complex molecules including some purine and pyrimidine bases which are essential components of both RNA and DNA. There has been much argument about the likely constituents of the ancient atmosphere but I am quite happy to accept that in these contrived but possibly reasonable model conditions it was evident that some of the molecules which would turn out to be necessary for life could be produced.

The real challenge here however is the next necessary step or steps. Various authors have come forward with ideas as to how such prebiotic molecules could then combine and organise such that some simple life form might conceivably result. This requires, somehow, the elaboration of life from inanimate precursor chemicals. The idea is honoured by a title which may lead one to suspect that there is more evidence here than actually exists – abiogenesis (biological products from non biological beginnings) that is the spontaneous generation of life form inanimate material.

This idea encapsulates one of the most profound of the gaps in our understanding of the origin of life. If we give the matter the status of a working proposition we need to consider it against the background of a current understanding of the mechanics of physics and chemistry.

Lots of investigators became involved in this discussion and in the design of various experimental systems setting out to uncover the truth about what seemed to be self evident. Some life forms appeared out of inanimate material. It was plain to see! In any event, to believe the notion that life appeared spontaneously from non living material was possibly forgivable before the 17th Century. Why? Well people “observed” such events as aphids arising from the dew which appears on plants, maggots arising from putrid matter and even mice arising spontaneously in stored grain. The notion of the spontaneous generation of life did appear to be consistent with the observations which people made. The later discovery of bacterial life forms served only to compound the issue and while macroscopic life required life for its generation – in the microscopic world it was not so clear cut. It was not until Louis Pasteur advanced the idea that life was basically cellular that clarification of this issue was attained. In summary the conclusion was that all living organisms were cellular and that all cells arise only from parent cells.

Despite that, frustration remained in that logically the original form of life must (almost by definition) come from a non cellular source. At least that was how the assumptions and arguments were framed.

Clearly there are real problems with the idea of the spontaneous generation of life. While it had been acceptable until about the Middle Ages the evidence base was really found in decaying material. Serious challenges emerged. For example the Italian physician and poet Francesco Redi concluded in 1668 that the generation of maggots was more to do with flies than any other mechanism of spontaneous generation from meat that was past its best! He set out some controlled experiments carefully excluding flies from some of the substrate and was able to demonstrate that maggots appeared only in the samples of meat where flies had access and could therefore lay their eggs.

It is interesting to observe how the dogma of the day had an influence on the conclusions which were drawn from the “scientific” observations. At about the time the Jacobites were marching south an English churchman, John Needham, was more preoccupied by matters of the origin of life as opposed to the occupation of the throne. He set out to test whether preparation in which micro-organisms were killed by boiling could themselves give rise to subsequent life forms. Using chicken broth as a substrate he boiled it, isolated it and after a short interval the micro-organisms he expected made their appearance. Abiogenesis scored again.

The skeptics were ready to challenge however and modifications to the methodology used by Needham were introduced. An Italian clergyman called Spallanzani repeated the design but endeavoured to extract all the air from the system. That was enough to scupper the process of life generation.

By the late 19th Century the legendary French chemist Louis Pasteur rose to a contest set up by the French Academy of Sciences. The task was to attempt to deal definitively with the concept of spontaneous generation of life. He basically developed the ideas used by the two, Needham and Spallanzani. Using a deceptively simple system he was able to show not only that spontaneous generation of life did not occur in the protein broth system but that there was good evidence of microscopic life forms which were abundant in the air.

Scientists can be notoriously difficult to prise away from their long held beliefs however and some 25 years after Pasteur’s winning experiment Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), was a flamboyant figure. He made significant contributions to various disciplines but on occasion was not prepared to let the evidence stand in the way of dogma! By the late 1870’s he had become an enthusiastic supporter of Darwin’s ideas. He famously indicated – against the track of the available evidence that “If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation.” [From Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation, trans. E. Ray Lankester, 3 rd ed. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1883), 1:348.]

This attitude is a persistent one. Consider the following astonishing quotation which correctly summarises the dilemma for naturalistic science and then appends a startling admission as a concluding statement!

"There are only two possible explanations as to how of life arose: spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God ... there is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility ... that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God. I can't accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

Dr George Wald 1906-1997. Higgins Professor of Biology Emeritus at Harvard University

Nobel Prize winner (shared) in Physiology or Medicine in 1967

George Wald, “Origin, Life and Evolution,” Scientific American (1978). Quoted in Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis, Darwin’s Demise: Why Evolution Can’t Take the Heat (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 46.

Often, a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy.

Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229

Self replicating (never mind selfish) genes: Their origin by chance goes beyond reason.

We would do well to have a look at some of the incredible molecular machinery involved in the production and operation of the nucleic acids which comprise the genetic code.

Watson and Crick struggled in what turned into something of a contest to unravel the detail of the composition of the key nucleic acid as far as living things are concerned – DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. Using a combination of mathematical modeling and information form x-ray diffraction studies of DNA performed by a crystallographer colleague Rosalind Franklin (1920-1958), Jim Watson, originally from Chicago and Francis Crick (1916-2004), an English molecular biologist figured out the double helical structure of DNA. There was some confusion and dispute about how some of the key pieces of information fell into the hands of the Cambridge team. They had been trying to fit various possible structures to the accumulating data and finally settled on the correct formulation, with the help of photographs taken by Franklin in 1953. Watson, Crick and another colleague, Maurice Wilkins, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1962.

The structure of DNA is exquisite. Its activity and control is an amazingly complex and accurate system which we should summarise. It will then be possible to look in more detail at the arguments and counter arguments in discussion about the origin of this incredible molecule.

DNA is formed from a long chain or polymer of compounds called nucleotides. In DNA these are purines (adenine and guanine) and pyrimidines (thymine and cytosine). These so called bases are strung together on a long twisted chain of deoxyribose sugar molecules and phosphate. It is the arrangement and order of the bases or nucleotides which embeds the information in the DNA molecule. The number of bases – actually base pairs because DNA is essentially composed of two complementary chains which form a perfect “match” for each other and they are mounted on a chain of alternating sugar molecules and phosphate groups hooked together by chemical bonds. matching made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds.

The way this molecule operates is quite amazing. I have assembled a number of animations which are freely available on the web and if you follow these you will rapidly begin to appreciate just how amazing and complex this information copying, transcribing and translating machinery actually is.

You can find it here - use the right and left arrows on the screen to move through the tutorials. There are 5 tutorials, the initial one on DNA structure and then building on that a series on basic DNA replication folowed by the astonishing machinery involved in protein synthesis.

DNA structure and replication: Fantastic animation showing the amazing structure and replication machinery of DNA.

Protein synthesis by means of transcription, RNA processing and translation.

OK – so far so good. One of the elephants in the room however concerns how all the information was assembled to then support these self generating processes and complex systems to operate. If you can accept that all of this machinery arose spontaneously by unguided natural processes and agaisnt the grain of just about everything we understand from the nature of matter energy and thermodynamics I suggest to you that you have allowed yourself to be taken in! It defies science, sense and reason!

So where did the information come from?

We made the point already that language always arises as a result of intelligence. Information communicates meaning. The underlying driving intelligence is an essential prerequisite for the transmission of any form of meaningful information. We should at least be able to have a run at the question of the source of such information. So where can we begin? One of the dangers that some see in this, is that a scientific approach is in danger of trespassing beyond a reasonable boundary. Can it be that in moving beyond the matter and energy involved in information transmission one begins to tread on metaphysical ground in trying to understand the source of the information which is self evidently behind the natural world? We must be careful to avoid drawing metaphysical conclusions from physical data. That said, there is no danger in following the evidence where it leads and in making reasonable conclusions from our observations.

One of the central issues here is that the model of evolution requires a dramatic increase in the size and complexity of the genetic blueprint in order for life to develop. As we have seen there are certainly elegant and elaborate mechanisms available for the replication and even, when things go wrong, accumulation of DNA within a cellular system. Building up duplicate copies of genetic material however fails to add information which is of biological significance. Indeed even getting to the point of spontaneously producing nucleic acids or proteins or complex sugars is far beyond any currently available chemical mechanism. Even if such basic building blocks of carbon-based organic life could have conglomerated it beggars belief to then assume that either the blueprint or the dazzling complexity of intracellular machinery could appear spontaneously!

If we accept that a mind, or a design must be behind an information source or a language, then it makes sense to accept that a purpose less process cannot possibly be the source of the information in the genetic code.

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.

–Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis
by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, 1977

One of the favoured analogies of the likelihood of the highly improbable production of an information system such as DNA being generated by random events is the one which involves monkeys and typewriters and which has been generally done to death! I think I’m right in saying that the initial example of this illustration was used by Thomas Huxley in a debate with Bishop Wilberforce in the year 1860. The notion at that time involved only six monkeys with typewriters and the goal of producing a copy of the 23 rd Psalm. I am preparing this manuscript on a keyboard with exactly 100 keys. If we provided each of the monkeys with a similar keyboard the chance of even generating the first word in the first of the verse of that psalm would be one chance in a hundred times one chance in a hundred times one chance in a hundred! That equates to one chance in one million. It is very clear that Huxley was a little over optimistic. The odds so far have only taken as to the conclusion of the first word. In a popular modern version, this psalm has six of verses, a total of 121 words and depending on the formatting, somewhere in the region of 700 characters, including spaces. The probability that our simian helpers might manage to complete the project is not all that difficult to work out (1 chance in 100 700) but the measure of the improbability is absolutely mind-boggling.

Whether you like the analogy or not, the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the spontaneous generation of biological information from an unguided source is illogical, unreasonable and totally unacceptable.

In contrast, and I accept that we are making a metaphysical inference from our observations, the only reasonable conclusion that we can defend here is to invoke the principle of design. The incredibly specified and complex language of our nucleic acid blueprint must, by definition, have arisen from an intelligent source. It seems to me that it is neither logical nor sensible to posit an alternative explanation.

Like it or not I’m afraid that the reality right now is this. There is no acceptable theory of evolution. The neo-Darwinian model is inexact, fails to fit the data, lacks validation at every level from the totaally inadequate fossil record through to its complete incapacity to deal with the specified complexity of the biochemical sub cellular world.

Back to the Worldview page.

Back to the home page.

Coming next

Morality and meaning. Where on earth does that come from?