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
Correction to post #8 just in case there are any theological hair splitters like me out there... I did not mean to express that Jesus is the universe incarnate or that he claimed to be. What I meant is that He is reality (God) incarnate and claimed to be so. It is the materialist along the lines of Dov's comments who would be claiming to be the universe incarnate. That is the equivilant of what Jesus claimed but from a materialist angle. Anyway, I wanted to make that clear for any who noticed the problem.Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
It amazes me that when scientists tried to test Oparin's theory, they were going against a scientifically established fact (that life only comes from life, which was established in the Middle Ages). They theorized that if conditions differed in the past, life could slowly have come from nonlife. Intelligence and advanced education were required (of the scientists) to study and even begin to explain what occurs at the molecular level in our cells. Is it reasonable to believe that complicated steps occurred in a "prebiotic soup" first, undirected, spontaneously, and by chance?Barb
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Lock@11. "Why is my cross so heavy when all of its weight was born for me? Obviously there is much I do not yet understand or just simple faith that has yet to grow." Matthew 11:28-30 (King James Version) 28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Jude 1 20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Romans 10:17 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Just thought I'd share this with you. God bless.IRQ Conflict
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Gil writes: "Here’s what I want to know: Why did so many people I respected and told me that they loved me indoctrinate me with an obvious lie? First of all, don't get the wrong idea. I haven't been to church in a month. I haven't read my Bible for two months. Been in a real desert lately, dreaming of how good it was in Egypt, and watching the Egyptians play with heathen abandon. I am dead serious about this. I am a nobody... That being said, yours is the kind of question that I have only found an answer to in scripture. Here's what immediately came to mind when I read it because the intellect fails me when faced with understanding such questions. John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. So I guess they do care for us Gil. Like the best lies, they are half-truths. There is a touch of real love in them. It is a distortion of true caring. It is populism, fear of man, and wanting to have a 'good name' in the community. It is politics, peer pressure and the inability to see how subtle and intense the pressure actually is. It is taking the easy road... and why not?... everyone else is doing it! But the clock does run out, collectively and individually. Proverbs 18:24 A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. I wish I could take the easy road. I hate to confess that I miss it. I still do, and then my conscious convicts me instantly. 'Oh wretched man that I am' etc... an alien in what was once 'my kingdom'. Why is my cross so heavy when all of its weight was born for me? Obviously there is much I do not yet understand or just simple faith that has yet to grow. Sorry for the nakedness Gil, all of this you already know...Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Be nice Herb. I once stood in his shoes. Though not complete, there is an answer to your question that is at least logically consistent. All dov has to do is put materialism into correct perspective (not the absolute ahead of the philsophy that anchors it) to understand for himself. For the most part, he is making valid logical extentions. The imagination involved will be culled with time. My gut tells me he will not however be shamed into submission. We can't win playing the game so common amongst the ID haters. This person seems a layman in the fray. Your question is legitimate, I just thought it obviously rhetorical, so I sensed a 'touch' of cynicism. I believe idiots deserve some grace, because I most assuredly am one.Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Lock: I had believed a lie for so long, as taught in basic high school science classes and the popular media. I was once in exactly your situation. I took it on unquestioning faith that what I was taught in school and told by academic intellectual types was true, and that there was no point in even considering challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy, because the only people who do so are mindless, uneducated, low-IQ religious fanatics. A friend, whom I respected because of his transparent wisdom and exemplary ethical lifestyle (despite the fact that he was a Christian and I thought belief in God was a destructive delusion), suggested that I read Michael Denton's Evolution, A Theory in Crisis. This suggestion came after a brief conversation in which I tried to convince him that, once upon a time, a self-replicating molecule came about, and then random changes and reproductive selection explained everything after that. He said, "I won't try to convince you, but I recommend that you read Denton's book." I read Denton's book, just as Michael Behe did. I slapped myself on the forehead and exclaimed: "Crap! I was conned!" Here's what I want to know: Why did so many people I respected and told me that they loved me indoctrinate me with an obvious lie?GilDodgen
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Hey Dov, not being flippant here, I really have to point this out. When you say there are two physics (astronomically or otherwise) and in the next or previous breath, refer to the 'oneness' of the universe (fractally or otheriwse) it sounds to me like you are reiterating a very old prinicple and trying to frame it with new language. Many out here understand the principle well (and respect its mystery too). You are acknowledging both the unity and diversity of reality as a whole. We just call it the trinity. It is not a new concept. In my estimation yours is a kind of trinitarian materialist point of view. Another piece of evidence for those of us who understand that materialism is simply another religion. Even your post (in it's entirety) has a very abstract religious flavor to it along the lines of, 'I am the alpha and the omega. The beginning and the end.' You are on to more than you may realize and I understand very well. The only difference I would encourage you to study is in the language. With one language, reality and its self originating qualities is expounded upon as a living being. Therefore life and being originate in Him. He is not simply the origin of life and truth, but as Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life". In your language, reality is not personal in the sense of being, but just is. The way you express it contains a presupposition that reality is not a 'who' but a 'what'. Interestingly it takes a 'who' (in this case you) to say it. Many others have preceded you in what I consider to be this error. I have observed for some time (and I think this is right) that science has demanded that the language be framed in the kind of presupposition that you yourself are using. I wonder if you are conscious of it? The philosophy in question (materialism) works well for science when uderstanding cause and effect relations in many areas. But to use it absolutely and apply it to ultimate reality in terms of origins is not science at all but strictly philosophy or metaphysics if you prefer. Your comments are not really observations at all. They are speculations. They are possibilities that have the quality of a declaration. The kind of declaration that logically can only be truely made [with conviction] by a man who thinks himself God. That being said, your comments show not only tremendous intelligence, but a simultaneous lack of perception regarding the necessity of the simple framework in which the mind must, at once, be inarguably anchored if those ideas to be meaningfully and consistently stated. Congratualations on discovering the trinity. Now stand up and declare yourself to be the universe (and its reality and origin) incarnate like Jesus did, and you'll have some real attention. Since I can never stop writing I might as well add that at some point, materialism will reach that point. A man (or more likely a plurality of 'mankind') will declare himself to be God, not just implicitely as is so common now, but outright and boldly. Then... many on the sidelines will have to make a choice. Is Jesus God, or is this 'new man' who unknowingly says the same thing as Jesus? Or... maybe it's just coincidence? ;)Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Dov Henis,
Genes are THE Earth’s organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs. *** The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth’s biosphere.
This is a very interesting thesis. Are you saying that genes originally existed on their own, and not as a part of some organism's DNA? How is this possible??herb
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Lock, I know exactly how you feel. We've all been lied to, and now they are threatened by it. Perfect.Upright BiPed
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
The Dark Matter sends me messages every night . . .90DegreeAngel
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
On The Origin Of Origins Dark Matter-Energy And “Higgs”? Energy-Mass Superposition The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes A. On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters AND Life, A Commonsensible Recapitulation http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#2125 The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters. The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion. B. Updated Life's Manifest May 2009 http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704 http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321 All Earth life creates and maintains Genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - All create and maintain genes. For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion. Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs. For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival. The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere. However, essentially it is indeed so. All Earth life, all organisms, create and maintain the genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - all create and maintain genes. Dov Henis (Comments from 22nd century)Dov Henis
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
So many of you have worked tirelessly in the face of unjustified persecution. The resistance is way beyond legitimate debate. We laymen and women (who appearently believe more in ID each day because of your work) thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, and God bless you... I remember hearing Paul Nelson interviewed by Hank Hannegraff regarding the Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVD. I was stunned by what I was hearing. It was very easy to follow. I remember thinking, 'why was none of this perspective on the Discovery Channel and National Geographic'??? I ordered it. I was already sitting down, tired from cheering and jumping up and down durring the video; but, when I got to the question and answer segment and heard Dr. Meyer explain his illustration about the lack of difference in mass between an empty CD and one containing information I was hooked. That is a powerful illustration. At that point, I stood back up with hands on my head. Like a modern day 'doubting Thomas' my emotions had me proverbially on my knees declaring, 'My Lord and my God'! I had believed a lie for so long, as taught in basic high school science classes and the popular media. Dean Kenyon's comparison between DNA's bits per cubic millimeter and our micro chips was also very illustrative. The whole thing was and is spot on. I asked my dentist once about the whole problem of DNA evolution since DNA is needed before evolution can occur. And if I you all don't mind me saying so myself, I did a masterful job of framing and asking the question. My dentist understood the matter perfectly and the look on his face was priceless. He gets right to business now and has not really spoken to me since. If only the establishment had such wisdom. Keep your wits and let their persecution make them ashamed to attack you. You folks are reaching many.Lock
July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
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. An excellent insight!tribune7
July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
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. In the beginning, the physical universe was created in a flash of light at a certain instant of time, or so says a certain ancient author. This was ridiculed as being preposterous by scientific consensus until the microwave background radiation signature was discovered. The flash of light was ultra-high-energy gamma radiation, which decayed into microwaves over a period of 14 billions years. So, as it turns out, observations about such things as vital forces being unique and essential in living systems, and the universe being created in a flash of light should not be discarded out of hand. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, if unjustified extrapolations are made from it.GilDodgen
July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
1 12 13 14

Leave a Reply