The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Friday, January 21, 2005

Creating Life - Science 101

The Wall Street Journal’s secular side says it’s very simple, but fails to share the recipe details.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is justifiably viewed as a bastion of conservatism.  Not so its reporting staff, who tend to take a left-wing view of business and politics.

Sharon Begley, who writes the Journal’s Science Journal column, is decidedly left-wing and secular.  For example, in her February 13, 2004, column healined Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in ‘Intelligent Design,’ she simply takes for granted that Darwinian evolutionary dogma is the only possible scientific hypothesis.

In today’s Journal, her column headlined Search for Other Life In Galaxy May Require A Broader Outlook leaps to the heights of an even more breathtaking assumption. The tone of her article is evidenced in this quotation:

“...just because life on Earth is built out of carbon, encodes genetic information in DNA, and uses water as a solvent to get chemicals close enough to each other to undergo biological reactions doesn’t mean that’s the only way to do any of these.

Take the challenge of getting the raw materials of living things close enough to undergo life-sustaining reactions. If they’re sitting there on your desk that’s not likely to happen. But dissolve them in a drop of water and you’re in business. “You need some kind of solvent to facilitate biochemical reactions,” says Prof. Benner. But does the drop have to be water? Probably not.”

Then, quite casually, as if it were an established scientific fact, she writes:

“In a life-friendly environment, all you need are the right ingredients. Again, we may have been too parochial in what we mean by life’s ingredients. Life on Earth is built of DNA and the 20 amino acids that make up proteins. But clever chemists have made many more amino acids than nature ever did. ....Not even DNA is sacrosanct. Scientists have created synthetic DNA by substituting different molecules for those that form standard DNA.”

Is it really that simple to breathe life into a puddle of chemicals?  Is it factual to assert flatly that all that’s needed are the right chemicals in a life-friendly environment?

I’ll keep an eye on Ms. Begley’s column and post the ingredients and the exact recipe as soon as she reveals them.  As they say, however, don’t hold your breath.

Scientists during the past century failed repeatedly to create life from inert chemicals that theoretically might have been present in the early life of the earth.  No one has ever come closer than demonstrating the some amino acids might have been synthesized under conditions now thought to be highly improbable in reality.  But, in their many laboratory experiments, none of those amino acids ever made the leap to become living tissue.

This is a vital point to understand. 

Darwin’s speculative evolutionary hypothesis posits that all living things evolved from a single living organism that evolved purely mechanically from a primordial puddle of non-organic chemicals.  If human scientist cannot, in fact, create life in the laboratory, then no matter what mechanism may have differentiated all the life-forms now on earth, Darwinians can’t escape the need to acknowledge God, Whose Divine powers structured the entire universe and created the first living tissue.

The facts remain quite simple.  Darwinians can conjure many different theses to show how life forms might have evolved, but they cannot produce a single proof of the hypothesis.

Posted by Thomas E. Brewton on 01/21 at 11:09 PM
Junk Science • (0) Comments
Print this ArticleEmail A FriendPermalink