DNA: The Discovery Darwin Never Saw Coming

What keeps me reading extensively, and listening to lectures and audiobooks, is the world’s incredible ability to surprise us at every turn. There is still so much to discover. New insights about the origins of life are but one example. And the implications are truly mind-blowing 

For much of the twentieth century, many people assumed that new discoveries in biology would steadily reinforce Darwin's explanation for the origin of species. Instead, one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the modern era raised an entirely different question. That discovery was DNA.

Stephen Meyer recently summarized this story in a lecture at Cambridge University. His point wasn't merely that Watson and Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. The larger discovery came a few years later when Francis Crick realized that DNA functions much like a digital code. 

DNA isn't simply a remarkable chemical. It contains instructions and stores information. Bill Gates once compared DNA to a computer program, only far more sophisticated than anything humans have ever written. That's an analogy, of course, but it captures something vital: living cells don't merely contain chemistry; they contain coded information that directs the construction of proteins, the molecular machinery that makes life possible.

This is where Meyer believes the discussion changes. Chemistry can explain many things. It can explain how molecules interact. But where does meaningful information come from? In our everyday experience, codes, software, languages, and written messages always originate with minds. They don't arise simply because chemicals happen to bump into one another.

Meyer argues that this presents a significant challenge for theories that attempt to explain life's origin solely through undirected material processes. Rather than asking only, "How did the chemicals get here?" he asks another question: "Where did the information come from?" 

Darwin & his ilk believe everything is possible with enough time and chance. It takes a lot of faith to believe 10,000 monkeys with 10,000 typewriters could ever produce Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or Cervantes' Don Quixote. This itself would be easier than creating life out of goo, or a universe out of nothing (though the latter is a different discussion.)

Science has always advanced by following the evidence wherever it leads. Ironically, Watson and Crick themselves were not looking for evidence of intelligent design. They were searching for the material basis of life. Yet what they uncovered was something that looked remarkably like a language—an information system residing within every living cell. To me, that's one of the fascinating twists in the history of science.

Darwin gave us a powerful theory that appeared to explain many aspects of biological change. Molecular biology in the twentieth century, however, revealed levels of complexity he could never have imagined. Instead of making the question of life's origin simpler, DNA has made it deeper.

Where there is information, we naturally ask about its source. Where there is a message, we ask about the messenger. DNA may not settle the debate for everyone, but it certainly reminds us that life is far more astonishing than anyone imagined a century ago. 

The most amazing (and convincing) feature of DNA to me (according to Meyer in another talk) is that for a species to be designed the code must precede it. This contradicts the "survival of the fittest" notions that chameleons changed the colors to blend in to an environment as a matter of survival. Other examples get cited in biology textbooks, but how did the code get altered after the fact when it must precede the species' designs beforehand. It doesn't make sense. 

Bottom Line:
The molecular revolution of the twentieth century introduced questions about the origin of biological information that Darwin himself never addressed and that remain the subject of ongoing debate. The appeal of thinkers like Stephen Meyer and David Berlinski is that contemporary scientists would remain committed to honest inquiry, not dogmatism, cherry-picking or confirmation bias. 

* * * * *

FWIW Dept.
According to the latest research, on average, a human gene contains about 10,000 to 30,000 "letters" (base pairs). Because the cellular machinery reads the code in three-letter "words" (called codons), this translates to roughly 3,330 to 10,000 amino acids per gene. Overall, the entire human genome across all 23 pairs of chromosomes contains about 3 billion base pairs of information.

Related Links

Why DNA Points to a Mind Behind the Universe
Berlinski and The Devil's Delusion

Berlinski and The Devil's Delusion

Having recently discovered mathematician and polymath David Berlinski, I ordered a pair of his books and am currently reading The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.  The introductory blurb at Amazon.com describing the book:

     

AMAZON: Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

In response, mathematician David Berlinski, himself a secular Jew, delivers a biting defense of religious thought. The Devil's Delusion is a brilliant, incisive, and funny book that explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it is the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world.

Berlinski's writing packs a punch. “The attack on traditional religious thought,” he writes, “marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

 

* * *

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how the Church is dying and Atheism is growing in popularity. As we all know, what's popular isn't always right. Yes, it's easy to cite plenty ot examples of abuse--even horrors--committed in the name of religion, but to hold up Atheism (or secular humanism) as a paragon of virtue is hilarious. Here's how Berlinski dismantles that notion.

In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. "Religion," he affirmed, "is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" (italics added).

In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.

* * *

The book has its critics, and as with most books I suggest that the best way to enjoy a writer is to chew on the meat and spit out the bones. This applies to Nietzsche or Russell, Orwell or Rand. And me, too.

What Does Math Teach Us About Deep Reality

"2 plus 2 equals 4. In all places and for all time, 2 plus 2 equals 4. But why? What does math tell us about the nature of reality? "

So begins a pretty juicy hour-long discussion about mathematics by three very smart men. Is math something humans invented—or something we discovered? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? 

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson has assembled a panel comprised of mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

* * * 

You can find Uncommon Knowledge on the Hoover Institution channel on YouTube. If you enjoy grappling with life's biggest mysteries, or having your foundational belief structures challenged (or affirmed), you'll likely find a home here. The ideas discussed are often decidedly contrarian if you've blindly wallowed in mainstream narratives.

The program features a profound discussion on the nature of mathematics and its role in understanding reality, hosted by Peter Robinson and featuring guests David Berlinski, Sergio Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer in Salzburg, Austria. The central theme revolves around the objective nature of mathematics and its implications for comprehending the universe, exploring whether mathematical truths are inventions or discoveries.

Something I gleaned from my physicist uncle, which is re-asserted in these discussions, is that science is not a settled matter. True science is an ongoing exploration that finds answers that always end with "this is what we know for now." True science must be coupled with humility, willing to be proven wrong. 

The great tragedy of science this past century is how much it has been infected by politics. As a result, massive rivers of financial support go to science projects that support political narratives. I've written before about how free speech has been squashed or discouraged. I'd not considered the degree to which free inquiry suffered in the sciences.  

The purpose of this blog post is to recommend and encourage you to listen to this episode of Uncommon Knowledge titled Why Does 2 + 2 = 4. Here's what you'd be digging into.

Mathematician David Berlinski emphasizes the inherent stability and objective nature of mathematical truths such as numbers, suggesting they cannot be reduced to more fundamental entities. He asserts that mathematics has a consistent reality independent of human thought, challenging purely materialistic interpretations of the universe.

Sergio Klainerman, a mathematician known for his contributions to the study of hyperbolic differential equations, argues for the objectivity of mathematics, comparing it to physical reality. He illustrates this with the example of black holes, whose existence, while not directly observable, is predicted by consistent mathematical theories, thereby underscoring the non-empirical nature of mathematical knowledge.

Author Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a leading proponent of the intelligent design movement, explores the philosophical implications of mathematical certainty, contrasting it with the empirical uncertainty of scientific hypotheses. He suggests that the high degree of certainty in mathematical proofs points towards a conceptual reality that transcends material existence, potentially indicating a divine or intelligent design.

The key concepts in this video include:

Mathematical Objectivity and Reality: The speakers explore how mathematical truths reflect an objective reality, questioning whether they are discovered or invented. This discussion intersects with philosophical notions concerning the existence of a conceptual realm.

Mathematics and Transcendence: Stephen Meyer and others discuss whether the objectivity of mathematics infers a transcendent reality, possibly residing in the mind of a divine being, challenging materialistic views of the universe.

Historical and Practical Impact: The panel examines the historical trajectory of mathematical ideas, such as the imaginary unit 'i' (square root of -1) and its significance in quantum mechanics, illustrating how abstract mathematical developments can profoundly influence scientific understanding.

Philosophical and Aesthetic Considerations: The conversation delves into philosophical mysteries around the existence of mathematical concepts, with reflections on whether beauty in mathematical theories serves as a guiding rule of thumb in scientific discovery.

Materialism and Interpretations of Reality: The limitations of materialism are discussed, with the panel considering non-material explanations for mathematical realities, echoing Newton's views on divine order.

One thing I like is how host Peter Robinson acknowledges that hs is standing in the shallow end of the pool when discussing these subjects with these others. Whether it's your field of interest or not I think you'll find the rewards of following along to be worth the work.

* * * 

Quite recently my interest in mathematics has been re-ignited by reading James Nickel's "Math Circles" on his Biblical Christian World View website. But what really captured my attention in this video was the title and its connection to Orwell's 1984. When Winston has been broken down inside the Ministry of Love, the phrase “2 + 2 = 5” is one of the most powerful symbols of totalitarian control. The Party isn’t satisfied with controlling actions—it wants to control reality. If it can make you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, then truth is no longer objective and reality becomes whatever authority says it is.

The goal isn’t just obedience—it’s belief. Winston isn’t “reformed” until he doesn’t just say 2 + 2 = 5 but when he actually accepts it and believes it as true.

We're not there yet, but there are certainly signs of that freedom of thought has been under attack these past 100 years. C.S. Lewis pointed out the erosion taking place in his Abolition of Man. If those in power can redefine the most basic truth, they can control everything else. 

Because 2 + 2 = 4 seems so obvious, we can fail to grasp the implications that accompany this reality. It's only a starting point, but this episode of Uncommon Knowledge can open your mind to think more deeply about the amazing universe we find ourselves in.

 

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality