Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Eye Into The Materialist Assault On Life’s Origins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Synopsis Of The Second Chapter Of  Signature In The Cell by Stephen Meyer

ISBN: 9780061894206; ISBN10: 0061894206; HarperOne

When the 19th century chemist Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea in the lab using simple chemistry, he set in motion the ball that would ultimately knock down the then-pervasive ‘Vitalistic’ view of biology.  Life’s chemistry, rather than being bound by immaterial ‘vital forces’ could indeed by artificially made.  While Charles Darwin offered little insight on how life originated, several key scientists would later jump on Wohler’s ‘Eureka’-style discovery through public proclamations of their own ‘origin of life’ theories.  The ensuing materialist view was espoused by the likes of Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow who built their own theoretical suppositions on Wohler’s triumph.  Meyer summed up the logic of the day

“If organic matter could be formed in the laboratory by combining two inorganic chemical compounds then perhaps organic matter could have formed the same way in nature in the distant past” (p.40)

Darwin’s theory generated the much-needed fodder to ‘extend’ evolution backward’ to the origin of life.  It was believed that “chemicals could “morph” into cells, just as one species could “morph” into another “ (p.43).   Appealing to the apparent simplicity of the cell, late 19th century biologists assured the scientific establishment that they had a firm grasp of the ‘facts’- cells were, in their eyes, nothing more than balls of protoplasmic soup.   Haeckel and British scientist Thomas Huxley were the ones who set the protoplasmic theory in full swing.  While the details expounded by each man differed somewhat, the underlying tone was the same- the essence of life was simple and thereby easily attainable through a basic set of chemical reactions.

Things changed in the 1890s.  With the discovery of cellular enzymes the complexity of the cell’s inner workings became all too apparent and a new theory that no longer relied on an overly simplistic protoplasm-style foundation, albeit one still bounded by materialism, had to be devised.  Several decades later, finding himself in the throws of a Marxist socio-political upheaval within his own country, Russian biologist Aleksandr Oparin became the man for the task. 

Oparin developed a neat scheme of inter-related processes involving the extrusion of heavy metals from the earth’s core and the accumulation of atmospheric reactive gases all of which, he claimed, could eventually lead to the making of life’s building blocks- the amino acids.  He extended his scenario further, appealing to Darwinian natural selection as a way through which functional proteins could progressively come into existence.  But the ‘tour de force’ in Oparin’s outline came in the shape of coacervates- small, fat-containing spheroids which, Oparin proposed, might model the formation of the first ‘protocell’.

Oparin’s neat scheme would in the 1940s and 1950s provide the impetus for a host of prebiotic synthesis experiments, most famous of which was that of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller who used a spark discharge apparatus to make the three amino acids- glycine, alpha-alanine and beta-alanine.  With little more than a few gases (ammonia, methane and hydrogen), water, a closed container and an electrical spark Urey and Miller had seemingly provided the missing link for an evolutionary chain of events that now extended as far back as the dawn of life.  And yet as Meyer concludes, the information revolution that followed the elucidation of the structure of DNA would eventually shake the underlying materialistic bedrock.          

Meyer’s historical overview of the key events that shaped origin-of-life biology is extremely readable and well illustrated.  Both the style and the content of his discourse keep the reader focused on the ID thread of reasoning that he gradually develops throughout his book.

Comments
dbthomas, that's an interesting link. I've often wondered why Dr. Dembski and others in ID have ignored important writers such as Susan Oyama, whose The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution is an important work in developmental systems theory.David Kellogg
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
What does T-A-G mean?Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Jerry @ 37:
It’s the same terminology that Watson and Crick used in 1953 and which is used in every biology departments all over the planet.
Oh, and you've checked them all, have you? Here, take a look at this, and you'll see it's hardly so cut and dried as you think: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy: Biological Informationdbthomas
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Information is well defined. Immaterial is immaterial to biology.jerry
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
jerry:
” they’ve nailed down their terminology” It’s the same terminology that Watson and Crick used in 1953 and which is used in every biology departments all over the planet.
It's not the terms, it's the usage. Do you think that Dembski's, Dodgen's, etc. usage of the terms information and immaterial is well-defined and unequivocal, and that biology departments use the terms in the same way?R0b
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
" they’ve nailed down their terminology" It's the same terminology that Watson and Crick used in 1953 and which is used in every biology departments all over the planet.jerry
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Cabal, I think a good cure for insomnia is to realize that some terms are used carelessly and equivocally here, information and immaterial being two of them. Dembski and Durston base their definitions on the classical concept of information, which is nothing more than a log-transformed view of probability. That would be well and good if they tightened up their idea of probability (given what, and according to whom?) and then stuck to the definitions, but somehow the terms get mysticized. A blank disk weighs the same as a full disk, says Stephen Meyer, so information is immaterial. But why should we expect probabilistic outcomes to have weight? And who says that a blank disk isn't a probabilistic outcome? And what substantial (so to speak) meaning does immateriality have if it's proven true by the existence of any mathematical concept or abstraction? And equating information with the elan vital seems a semantic jump that would clear Fonzie's shark by a mile. I think we can ask the ID community to wake us when they've nailed down their terminology, and sleep in for a long, long time.R0b
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
Middle Island-san, That’s all well and good—yet when you say, “But he was confident that science was the right method to cover that distance,” you are subtlely equating science with materialism. On this site, one should think, that is part of what’s being debated—not presupposed. A picky point, no doubt, but do you think I'd get by with anything like that on a Darwinist site?Rude
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Naka, your comment seems to be lacking the all-so-evasive evidence for the spontaneous generation of Life.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Rude-san, I think Huxley was arguing that ordinary organic chemistry, advancing step by step without recourse to the divine (or to design) would eventually provide an experimental proof that life could arise from inorganic sources, sufficient to convince that life did, in fact, arise from inorganic sources earlier in Earth's history. The essay I linked to earlier is quite short, and lacking strong evidence to discuss he goes on at length about the methods of science.Nakashima
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Information may not be the same thing as the old vitalism or élan vital (or morphic resonances in the writings of Rupert Sheldrake), but I suspect that the latter is as necessary as the first. The information in the design of a machine does not give it the will to live, nor has anyone ever come up with a theory as to how it could. ID argues that information/design arises only from intelligence. Another subject is whether life and mind are more than mere information instantiated in some mechanism.Rude
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Mr BiPed, You may share Barb-san's incredulity, I will share Huxley's confidence. Science seems to be progressing in this area along the path he outlined 150 years ago.Nakashima
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
I hardly slept a wink last night; these words stuck in my mind and wouldn't let go:
I find this very interesting. As it turns out, there is indeed an “immaterial vital force” that is unique in living systems, and found nowhere else in chemistry. It’s called information. Chemistry is the medium; information is the message.
I tried and tried, several approaches but couldn’t find my way. There must be an explanation for this, or are we really dealing with supernature – that as far as I can understand, is beyond reach of observation by us? Is this the next step of ID theory? I’ll try to formulate the question uppermost in my mind: Is this “immaterial vital force” that is unique in living systems something like ‘glued’ to or somehow mysteriously integrated with the (biological) information, making information in living systems qualitatively different from information elsewhere, say in a computer? Let’s make a thought experiment: Reverse engineering of a biological system by first creating a string of ACGT code in a computer. Next, our hypothetical machine converts the computer code into a real, chemical string of DNA. Then, inserting this artificially created information in whatever biological environment suitable, would that information now not contain and express the unique immaterial vital force, would it not function like 'regular' DNA? There are a lot of other questions about this subject buzzing in my mind right now but I guess that’s enough for now but I am looking forward to learning more about this fascinating subject. Are we about to see a real breakthrough in ID research?Cabal
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Naka, "Barb-san’s comment was one paragraph implying evidence of difficulty that scientists had, and one paragraph of incredulity. I tried to address a mild factual error and question the existence of the evidence." It seems that incredulity is a shared trait. As far as the question of evidence for the spontaneous generation of life, I think the weight of the evidence is overwhemingly in Barb's favor. You may have empirical information to the contrary that you wish to share, and I as just one casual observer, look forward to your presentation.Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
"But he was confident that science was the right method to cover that distance." Nakashima, are you here slipping in a materialist definition of "science"? Do you mean that Huxley was confident that it was chance and necessity sans design all the way down? Is confidence in science and confidence in materialism the same thing?Rude
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Mr Biped, I am almost certain this is the idea in Barb’s comment. Barb-san's comment was one paragraph implying evidence of difficulty that scientists had, and one paragraph of incredulity. I tried to address a mild factual error and question the existence of the evidence. That life didn't pop out of a bucket of goo, that is certainly the idea of at least part of Barb's comment.Nakashima
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Mr Deyes, Darwin’s theory generated the much-needed fodder to ‘extend’ evolution backward’ to the origin of life. This sentence is an example of the difficulty I have in distinguishing your ideas from Dr Meyer's ideas. It sounds as if you are saying that the concept of evolution was accepted in some other, more conteporary context, and then Darwin came along and pushed the idea of evolution back in time to the very origin of life. Who holds that position? You? Dr Meyers? Darwin? I have read Huxley's lecture "The Origination of Living Beings" and I find no notion similar to that implied here. Huxley was clear that science had made little or no progress on the experimental front, which he did understand pretty clearly. (It almost seems as if the Miller-Urey experiment could have been conducted 90 years ealier.) He also doubted that 'historical' evidence from fossils had come close to the origin of life, based on an argument from apparent complexity. That is the opposite of what is said here of Huxley. Huxley was not confident of the simplicity of the cell and therefore the origin of life. He was quite aware of the problems and distance still to go. But he was confident that science was the right method to cover that distance.Nakashima
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san:
Pasteur’s theory that life only comes from other life was a mid-19th century idea, that was advanced against the idea of spontaneous generation.
And the science of the 21st century has confirmed that only life begets life.Joseph
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed, you have provided the second step of the ID two-step proof via OOL. Step 1. If life cannot be artificially manufactured, life is too complex to have evolved ==> therefore ID. Step 2. If life can be artificially manufactured, life is created by intelligence ==> therefore ID.David Kellogg
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Naka, Very soon man will likely be able to manufacture Life in a lab. When he does, then Life will have followed Life - as it were. Pasteur will not be embarrassed by this, given that Life didn't just pop up in a bucket of goo. I am almost certain this is the idea in Barb's comment. Surely, you see the distinction. :)Upright BiPed
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Ms Barb, Pasteur's theory that life only comes from other life was a mid-19th century idea, that was advanced against the idea of spontaneous generation. Since this idea logically breaks down at any theory of biogenesis, whether natural or divine, I don't know that scientists looking into OOL experiments, such as testing if Oparin's coacervates could form in primitive conditions, really suffered any criticism from this direction. If you can quote an example, it would be helpful.Nakashima
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
'kind of' yes!Lock
July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
To Lock/Biped. You have goaded me into one more response. Please explain: In my estimation yours is a kind of trinitarian materialist point of view. trinitarian materialist ?Graham
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Lock, You may have to just ignore Graham. There are those that come here and actually have something meaningful to say. They are vital and interesting, particularly when the conversation focuses on the physical evidence for agency involvement in the Universe and Life within it. Then there are those, like Graham, who in their indefensible certainty, cannot question themselves for any reason whatsoever. Your willingness to do so, and to voice it openly, is anathema to him - a delighful example of what is to be mocked for his personal entertainment. Your strength he sees as a human weakness. One stemming from the stupid ideas of old. His weakness he perceives as a glorious strength - a triumphant victory in the name of reason. And so it goes...Upright BiPed
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Thanks for playing Graham... Next!Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
To Lock. I did not find it until I considered Christianity ... I thought it was a parody up until that last line. The Jesuits would love you.Graham
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
What does it mean? :( I generally wouldn't expect a materialist (if you are one) to ask questions about meaning. It is far more relative to the existential elements of life than the cerebral. That's ok... our emotional life must cohere with our intellect as well. Do you expect coherence and meaning? Appearently you do... And that shows that you are demanding the very principle discussed in order to question it. Can you see that? It's fine if yours is a genuine question. But it is quite appearent that you asked the question rhetorically, not in order to actually test the validity of what I said, but to cast doubt upon it by simply raising the question. Very bad approach in serious objective debate, and very common in todays courtroom dramas and political satire TV. I really do want to get this right... So you want me to take all of the diverse concepts referenced only implicitly in my abstract response to Dov, and show how they can be unified into a meaningful whole? If so, you should now understand why it is relevant... because we seek it in everything. The coherence between to or more clues (or witnesses) is necessary to truely know 'anything'. And I am not talkig about absolute knowledge. I mean even minimal knowledge. The questions that mattered to me most with regard to nature, reality, and the universe, were how to unify our observations with our philosophical options regarding origins. I didn't understand my confusion then as I do now, so be mindful that I am looking back with the benfit of hindsight. Then, I didn't even know what it was I wanted, but now I believe I wanted my philosophy to match my science. It was not only an intellectual puzzle and desire, but one that would bring tremendous existential peace as well. That did not happen as an atheist, or a pantheist. I did not find it in LSD. Believe me I tried. I did not find it until I considered Christianity with all my all my heart, all my mind, and all my strength. What was your question again?Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
To Lock at #8 ... the unity and diversity of reality as a whole. Jumping Jupiter. What on earth does all that stuff mean ? Does it mean anything ?Graham
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Words mean things. It could easily have been genuine problem if not understood. I'm may be an idiot, but I am not stupid... :DLock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Lock,
Correction to post #8 just in case there are any theological hair splitters like me out there…
Thanks for clearing that up before the thread got derailed into a theological quagmire. :Dherb
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply