Describing the remarkably intricate biochemistry of the cell, James D. Watson, co discoverer of the DNA structure, wrote in his book ‘Molecular Biology of the Gene,’ “We must immediately admit that the structure of the cell will never be understood in the same way as that of water or glucose molecules.
Not only will the exact structure of most macromolecules within the cell remain unsolved, but also their relative locations within cells can only be vaguely known. It is thus not surprising that many chemists, after brief periods of enthusiasm for studying ‘life,’ silently return to the world of pure chemistry.
Yet despite ever-increasing awareness of the structural and behavioral complexity of even the simplest living systems, many scientists continue to theorize that life has emerged from a primordial chemical soup without the direction of any higher (creative) organizing principles.
They imagine that in the course of random chemical bonding, simple molecules combined into complex organic compounds, which eventually integrated themselves into self-reproducing organisms. This scenario is being presented as the undisputed truth about the origin of life in every science classroom around the world – in grade schools, high schools and colleges and universities. Radio and television, and the popular science publications reinforce the message.
To some, talk about topics such as whether or not life emerged from matter may appear far removed from day to day affairs, and thus irrelevant to their own lives. Whether the discussions involve highly reasonable ideas based on solid evidence or vague, unsubstantiated hypotheses rooted in flimsy data and nurtured by scientific prejudice, they seem like subject matter for scholars in ivory towers.
But because the answers to fundamental questions about the origin of life determine how we view ourselves and our place in the universe, they profoundly affect our sense of identity, our decisions, our feelings, our relationships, our behavior – in fact, they affect all aspects of our life, including the goals of our whole secular society.
According to the understanding of modern chemists, the molecules involved are merely submicroscopic units of matter. The remarkable ways in which they combine might lead one to attribute mystical potencies for self-organization to them. Scientists however, are quick to reject this idea, insisting instead that molecules do nothing more than follow the laws of physics.
But just how molecules acting according to these relatively simple mechanistic laws could combine together to produce inconceivably complicated cells has yet to be explained. And how such cells could evolve according to the same laws to produce complex higher organisms is an even knottier question.
So despite the rigid adherence of the scientific community to the current mechanistic explanation of chemical evolution, it would seem appropriate for us to remain open to the possibility that other factors may be involved in chemical evolution – perhaps even some kind of self-intelligent organizing principle. Could the notion of creation still be required to solve the great mystery of life on earth?
For more information on Dr John F Demartini and upcoming events contact The Demartini Institute: info@drdemartini.co.za
or +27 83 370 2201 (Clarissa Judd).