By
Dr. R. Gange
Part 1: Life's Mystery
-------------------------------
WHO OR WHAT MADE LIFE?
Have you ever seen a poem that embraced all of life? Well
here's one that tried:
"Ants danced last Summer and flys flew through Fall;
Winter bred its berries - but Spring made them all".
And so it is with life. Each year at springtime it buds
anew. Do you remember your last picnic? If it was like mine,
there was a struggle between eating the food and fighting off the
ants and bees. The ants crawled all over the table while the
bees attacked the sweets. Then as the sun went down, mosquitos
came from nowhere but soon were everywhere. They came in droves.
But picnics aren't the only place where we run into pesty
insects. Has a fly ever buzzed you at dinner? Or a spider's web
stuck to your fingers? Have you ever seen a bug fly into your
windshield? Or experienced a blinding cloud of gnats swirling in
your face? The question is: Where do all of these things come
from? Who or what is the real source of their life?
WHY SO MANY KINDS?
No matter where we turn we see life. It's everywhere! Look
at the trees. They produce countless leaves that we rake in the
fall, but also support nests for all kinds of birds. And the
birds can be found in every country and in any climate. They hop
on lawns and yet fly over oceans. The oceans contain so many life
forms that we have yet to catalog them all. And the variety of
sea life is so enormous that it's difficult to know how to
describe it. Consider the fish. They come in arrays of colors,
shapes and sizes. Some are barely visible, and are as small as
paper clips. Yet all of us know the size of a whale. Most are
longer than a driveway!
DID SPARKS IGNITE LIFE?
But where did it all come from? How did these living things
get here? Many believe that they came from a chemical accident.
The idea is that billions of years ago lightning passed through
different gasses in the Earth's early atmosphere and created a
'living object'. Thereafter it supposedly evolved to produce all
the life that we see today. It may surprise you to learn that
science must now reject this idea. We've discovered new things
that show sparks traveling through gas don't make life. As we'll
see, the new evidence teaches that a living cell was designed -
and by a Supreme Intelligence.
WHERE DOES LIFE HIDE?
There are an estimated 6 million species of life on Earth.
Five million of these can be thought of as bashful insects who
live underground. This is the 'hidden' level which are not
directly visible to us. The remaining one million are more or
less visible. But their lives depend on the 5 million we don't
see. The elephant is highly visible, but tiny insects aren't.
Yet all of them exist together on one planet and work in
beautiful harmony. Each seems to offer what the others need. The
question is: Where did they come from?
WHO LIT THE FIRST MATCH?
Let's ask this question: Where did you come from? If you
tell me from your parents, then where did they come from? The
fact is that your parents didn't create you. They procreated you.
It's like striking a match to light a candle. Once lit, we can
use the candle to light another candle. This example illustrates
procreation - in this case one candle's flame to another. That's
what our parents did when they brought you and me into the world.
They 'procreated' life. But where did the first life come from?
In the case of the candle it's easy. The match did it. But what
"match" gave rise to the first life? Where did it come from?
WHO OR WHAT MADE THE SEED?
We know that each generation of life grows to a peak in
strength and vigor, and then withers and dies. It's a cycle that
lets life from the next generation be born anew. But the "seed"
that makes it all happen doesn't change. And it seems never to
tire or die. Instead each generation creates new seed from the
'blueprint' found in the old. The miracle of life is the miracle
of its seed. Yet how easy it is for us to imagine that atomic
particles bounced themselves into some magic combination to make
it all happen. But though such imaginings are easy, modern
science shows they're not sensible To see why this is so, it's
helpful to first to look at history, and the folly of old ideas.
Then we'll look at what we've discovered that shows something
more than chance is at play.
Part 2: Life's History
------------------------------
DO PONDS CREATE TOADS?
Long ago people thought that life came from grain. They saw
rats running out from piles of wheat and thought the wheat had
given rise to life. They reasoned in the same way about water.
When toads hopped out of ponds, they thought it was the
spontaneous generation of life. Today this sounds very amusing;
but if we lived back then, we'd probably come to the same
conclusion. Of course they changed their minds when they sat
around the pond and studied it. Eventually they realized that
toads hopped in before they hopped out. The same thing occurred
with the wheat; they saw rats running in before they ran out. The
real lesson is this: It's easiest to believe and accept whatever
we know the least about. In essence, anything can seem plausible
in the absence of knowledge to contradict it. Later, when our
knowledge increases, it points us away from the earlier and
mistaken ideas. As we'll see, history taught us this lesson
several times over.
DOES MUD CREATE WORMS?
The idea that life comes from nonlife didn't stop with rats
and toads. It was next supposed that life originated at the next
unseen smaller level. This time it was worms. And, again, they
were sure they were right. Each time a worm crawled out of the
mud, they thought the mud had spontaneously created life. We
might regard this as silly; but if our information was the same
as theirs, I'm not sure what we'd say. It's important to realize
that the knowledge at our disposal today has been accumulated
over centuries of observation and study. Today we know that their
beliefs were wrong; but ages ago, and with their limited
knowledge, it made sense to suppose that a worm appearing from
"nowhere" was the spontaneous generation of life. But even though
it made sense it was none the less untrue.
DOES DIRT MAKE INSECTS?
Eventually, they learned that mud didn't make worms. At
least not the big kind. But the result was that they believed the
mud made insects. Have you ever seen the eggs of a fly? They
hatch into 'larvae' that squirm and look like tiny worms. The
common name is maggots. Insects were laying eggs on the ground,
and the eggs were hatching into maggots that looked like tiny
squiggly worms. People thought that the big worms came from the
small ones, and that maggots were the spontaneous generation of
life. Once again they were sure they were right. Why? Because the
same thing more or less was happening in bowls of meat. When they
put meat into a bowl, maggots soon crawled all over it. Thus the
creation of life was again transferred to the next, unseen
smaller level.
CAN MEAT CREATE FLYS?
No further proof seemed necessary. Put meat into a bowl -
and presto ..... out comes life! It worked until someone had the
good sense to keep a cover over the bowl. Then suddenly the life
disappeared. What happened was simple. Flies and other 'bugs' had
been laying eggs on the meat. When they hatched, life appeared.
The life didn't come from the meat. It came from the eggs that
other life had deposited onto the meat. When the bowl was
covered, insects could no longer lay eggs on the meat. They had
believed it was the spontaneous generation of life. But it proved
to be only disappointment.
WHAT'S THE NEXT UNSEEN LEVEL?
When their hope was spoiled, they did the same thing all
over again. As you can probably guess, they said life was
spontaneously generated at the next, unseen smaller level. This
time it was really small - the tiny living specks we know as
bacteria. These single cells of life are plant-like in character.
They're small enough for millions to fit on the head of a pin!
What better choice for the spontaneous generation of life?
Furthermore, it was the 18th century and 'science' was seen as an
invincible ally. They were convinced that this was the start of
life. Several felt that definitive biological tests could be
performed, and many were sure that the spontaneous generation of
life from nonlife could be proved. But except for Pasteur (who
believed otherwise), the science that they trusted proved them
all wrong.
DOES SOUP CREATE BACTERIA?
We might ask: If bacteria are this small, how could anyone
see them - especially back then? The answer is the microscope. It
was invented in 1590, and used to unveil the plant-like specks 86
years later in Holland. Then in the late 1800's a controversy
raged in Paris over "soup" that was spoiling. Bacteria were
making it cloudy, and again people believed that they were
witnessing the spontaneous generation of life. Yes - we've been
here before. It's the idea that life can come from nonlife. As
we'll see, the facts again proved them wrong, and demonstrated
that to get life you need life - a lesson that persists into the
present time.
CAN AIR CREATE LIFE?
Most everyone agreed that the soup had become cloudy due to
bacteria. But did the soup spontaneously generate the plant-like
specks? Back then the near unanimous opinion was yes. Pasteur was
one of the few dissenters. To prove his point he put clear soup
into a bottle and sealed the opening so that nothing could enter.
But when his soup stayed clear, his adversaries yelled foul. They
claimed that life didn't appear in the soup because Pasteur had
kept the "magic ingredient" from reaching it. They believed that
"air" was the magic ingredient, and that the soup needed air for
life to appear. This seemed reasonable at the time because
nothing happened to the soup when the bottle was sealed. A remark
that was typical of the thinking at that time was: "No wonder the
soup is clear, the bottle has no access to a fresh air supply".
But as we'll see, Pasteur invented a way around their objections.
Once again the false idea that life can come from nonlife was
shown to be wrong.
DO PLANTS PIGGYBACK DUST?
Pasteur was sure that soup didn't create life. He was a
person who believed that life came from God and to show others
that it didn't come from soup, he invented the 'Pasteur Flask'.
In appearance, this special flask looked like a big hollow glass
ball. The only way into the ball was thru a glass tube that was
connected to its top. In appearance, the glass tube went up and
away from the ball, but then it curved back down - and then went
up again with its end hanging open in space. Air entered the tube
through its open end and passing thru the tube reached the soup
in the bowl. But the dust particles on which the bacteria were
riding got trapped in the lower curve (neck) of the tube. Thus
even though air entered the bowl, the soup stayed clear - and it
is reported to have remained clear for over a hundred years! Like
the rats, toads and worms that had gone before, the bacteria had
to go in before they could come out.
WHAT IS LIFE'S BUILDING BLOCK?
Again we had failed to find the source of life, and so the
time was ripe for a new idea. But the next idea wasn't really
new. Instead, it proved to be the same thing all over again. Once
again the cry was: "Life comes from nonlife ..... and at the next
unseen smaller level". But this time man chose the smallest thing
imaginable. The spontaneous generation of life was said to be the
"protein molecule" - a level of structure many regard as the
basic building block of life itself. The reason is that when
submerged into the same chemicals of which it's made, a protein
molecule can "inspire" these chemicals to assemble another
molecule just like itself.
HAVE WE ACCEPTED A FAIRYTALE?
Thousands of years have come and gone, and yet the source of
life eluded us. Then the 20th century rolled in, and we were told
that science had the answer. How could it be wrong? So we
believed a new story: Life was created by a chance combination of
chemicals. The question, of course, is this: "Is it true? Have
we finally found the level at which nonlife spontaneously
generates into life? As long as this level remained 'unseen', the
answer was yes. But with the advent of electron microscopes and
information theory, the answer has changed to 'no'. Furthermore,
when we consider the trend line, the new answer shouldn't
surprise us. Man once thought wheat hatched rats and ponds made
toads. Then he said mud bred worms and dirt bore grubs. Later he
believed meat formed flies and soup spawned plants. Now the story
is slime made cells that crawled out of a bath of nutrients.
What's fantastic isn't the story, but rather that so many
actually accept it as true. Why do we do this? One answer is that
it's easiest to believe the things that we know the least about.
ARE THERE ANY FACTS?
Each time the spontaneous generation of life from nonlife
seemed assured. But when we actually studied the consequences of
such beliefs, we found that we were wrong. What then happened is
what always happens. We assumed life originates at the next,
unseen smaller level. Now the story is that life originated from
a chemical accident. Some even believe science has already
created life in a test tube; or that science has proved that life
began accidently when our planet was very young. As we'll see -
none of this is true. Stories are fun and can be convincing, but
facts are hard to come by.
WHO ENGINEERED THE BLUEPRINT?
It's important to realize that the 'accidental' explanation
of life's origin is not a scientific explanation. Regardless of
what you may read or hear, all scientific explanations are
falsifiable. But the report that life came from some happy
accident millenia ago is not a falsifiable hypothesis. It is a
colorful story accepted on the basis of criteria that virtually
all scientists reject today when testing other hypotheses. No one
has duplicated the event in a laboratory, and all work that is
being done to create such life must fail because modern science
has declared nature to be an informational eunuch. Fundamental
physical laws teach that natural sources cannot produce the
information we find in life's blueprint. Our universe - though 13
billion years old and 30 billion light-years wide - is simply too
young and too small to have produced the information found in
even a simple bacterium (several hundred thousand bits). Moreover
the accidental story of life is believed not because the facts of
science have shown it to be true, but rather because no other
alternative is "plausible" without recourse to "God".
Part 3: Life's Intricacy
--------------------------------
IS THE GREAT PUMPKIN REAL?
Though the miraculous accident idea is fashionable, it's out
of step with the facts of modern science. Moreover, when we
consider the miraculous accident idea in the light of Information
Theory, the results appear to say that believing in the 'Great
Pumpkin' is a better bet. Certainly our track record in the past
is poor. Historically, we've always been wrong. Now we've pushed
the spontaneous generation of life to the next unseen smaller
level. This time it's the protein molecule.
IS PROTEIN LIKE A TRAIN?
How small is a protein molecule? To answer the question, we
first need to ask: What is protein? In your mind's eye picture a
string of railroad cars. Each car is connected to the next. There
are milk cars, cattle cars, coal cars, lumber cars and so on. If
there are 2 kinds of trains with 574 total cars, then we have a
picture of hemoglobin. This protein is in our blood. The iron it
contains is specially located to carry oxygen more efficiently
than anything else we know. Were it not for hemoglobin, our heart
would need to pump 50,000 gallons a day just to keep us alive.
And our blood pressure would be - Can you guess? - almost 10,000
pounds per square foot.
HOW IS PROTEIN ASSEMBLED?
Protein is made of building blocks called 'amino acids'. We
can picture them as the links in a chain, or we can think of them
as wooden blocks connected end to end - in the same way that
railroad cars are connected end to end in a train. Imagine trying
to assemble a 'hemoglobin train'. We would need a total of 574
railroad cars. Each car can be thought of as an amino acid, of
which there are 20 different kinds in our body. In assigning the
first railroad car, we can select from among 20 different kinds
of cars. But when we assign the second railroad car, we must also
select from among these different 20 kinds. Thus we can choose
the first car 20 ways - and for each of these choices - there are
20 different ways that we can choose a second car.
HOW CAN WE ASSEMBLE PROTEIN?
Let's illustrate how we could assemble protein by means of a
'train' example. In our hypothetical train, the first and second
cars can be 2 coal cars, or a coal car and a milk car, or a coal
car and a cattle car, or a coal car and a lumber car, or a coal
car and whatever. The point is once we've chosen the first car
as a coal car, the second car is selected from among 20 different
choices. Suppose instead, we let the first car be a milk car. The
same thing happens. We can again choose our second car from among
20 different kinds. We might have a milk car and a milk car, or a
milk car and a cattle car, or a milk car and a lumber car, and so
forth.
HOW MANY WAYS CAN PROTEIN BE ASSEMBLED?
Let me summarize what's been said thus far: For each of the
20 ways we can choose the first car - there are 20 ways we can
choose the second car. This gives us 20 selections of the second
car for each choice of the first car. We thus have 20 times 20
ways of choosing the first 2 cars of our train. This means that
there are 400 ways (combinations) that we can assemble the first
and second car of our train. Were we to make a train with 3
railroad cars, our third car could be chosen 20 different ways
for each of the 400 combinations of the first and second cars.
This would give us 8000 combinations. Hemoglobin contains 2
trains totalling 574 cars - each selected from among 20 kinds of
amino acids. The number of ways we can assemble these hemoglobin
trains is so vast that its a trillion, trillion, trillion (repeat
20 times more) times the entire number of stars in our universe.
Yet despite this, only one combination known to man carries
oxygen most efficiently in your blood. Moreover, if just one
railroad car is changed in the 6th position of one of the trains,
the result is sickle-cell anemia disease. And consider this: 270
million of these hemoglobin protein molecules of just the 'right
combination' - reside in each one of the 600 trillion red blood
cells in your body. Did this just happen by chance?
Part 4: Life's Complexity
---------------------------------
WHAT CAN'T WE CALCULATE?
Can we calculate the certainty hemoglobin couldn't have
happened by chance? The answer is no, and for the following
reason: Hemoglobin is so complicated that we can't fully describe
it. We need to settle for something simpler. The argument then
goes like this: If a simpler thing couldn't have happened by
chance, then neither could hemoglobin. One protein that is much
simpler than hemoglobin, and which scientists have extensively
studied is a 'string of cars' called: 'Cytochrome C'. It's a much
shorter protein than hemoglobin (the 'train' has "only" 101
railroad cars). Furthermore, Cytochrome C is of interest because
it is basic to all of life. Among other things, it controls both
the respiration and energy transfer in the living cells of a
broad spectrum of life.
WHY COULDN'T WE CALCULATE IN THE PAST?
Perhaps we should pause to realize that the calculation
necessary to learn whether life could have come about throught an
accident was not possible until very recently. That's because the
calculation needs 2 things: Insight from Information Theory - and
data from Electron Microscopy. Mankind first learned of
Information Theory as a useful tool in the early 50's. And the
electron microscope wasn't available as a practical device until
the early 60's. Thus if we lived before 1960 and believed life
was an accident, no one could prove us wrong. Today that's
changed. Now - for the first time in all of mankind's history -
he can calculate the next, unseen smaller level. The result is
this: To get life, you need life. Nothing less will do.
WHAT'S THE LONGEST ACCIDENT?
When scientists calculate the certainty that Cytochrome C
couldn't have come about through an accident, it's a little more
complicated than asking the question: "How many ways can we
assemble a train" but the basic idea is the same. Of course there
are many technical details that must be considered. Suffice it to
say all of that has been carefully done, and the results
published in the scientific literature. The result is
staggering. In terms of our railroad train, the calculations show
that the longest train that an accident can produce is under 50
cars. This is mind-boggling when we remember that a hemoglobin
protein molecule consists of 2 trains totalling 574 cars!
HOW BIG IS 'HUGE' ?
You may be thinking: What's so staggering about limiting a
train (protein chain) to under 50 cars (amino acids)? Since we
only needed 101 (for Cytochrome C) - isn't that only missing the
mark by 50 percent? The answer's no. We've missed the mark by an
huge percent. It's deceptively naive to think that the
certainty it can't happen doubles with the length of the train.
It doesn't work that way. When the train length doubles to the
101 amino acid residues of Cytochrome C, the numbers are such
that, as a practical matter, it's impossible for an accident to
produce it. Let's see why.
HOW DOES ONE TRACE 'IMPOSSIBLE'?
The certainty that an accident did not create Cyctochrome C
has been carefully calculated. Yet this small protein corresponds
to a train that's only 101 railroad cars. We can't even fathom
the complexity of hemoglobin with 574 cars. We're only looking at
the certainty that Cytochrome C didn't happen accidently. But
it's here that I - the writer - have a problem. The certainty
that we know chance did not produce Cytochrome C is so vast -
it's hard for me to communicate it clearly. But with your help,
let's try.
CAN WE FIND ENOUGH PAPER?
In your mind's eye picture an 8-l/2 x 11 sheet of paper. Now
let's print letters on both sides. It doesn't matter what we
choose for the letters - but only that the paper has printing on
both sides. Let's allow 80 columns by 66 rows. This will give us
just under 5300 letters on each side per sheet, or l0,600 letters
per sheet. Next we'll put the sheets into piles. We can stack
about 320 sheets per inch. This gives us just over 36,200 letters
in a cube one inch on a side. Now here's the question: What
volume of space do we need to store enough sheets whose total
number of letters equals the certainty that chance did not
produce Cytochrome C? The answer will astound you. We need the
space of 40,000 universes - each 30 billion light-years wide!
IS LIGHT A YARDSTICK?
Light travels at a speed of just over 186,000 miles per
second. This means in one second light can travel 7 and a half
times around the Earth. If light can travel that far in one
second, imagine how far it will go in a year. Scientists call the
distance light travel's in one year a 'light-year'. It's roughly
6 thousand billion miles. We believe that our universe - out to
the visible horizon - is about 30 billion light years wide. Yet
the certainty that an accident did not create Cytochrome C is the
number of letters filling both sides of 8 and a half by 11 sheets
packed into the space of 40,000 universes!
FROM WHO OR WHAT DO WE COME?
Join me in considering something: You and I are both aware
that we exist. Yet we're told that all of life - this includes
you and me - bounced itself into existence by a happy accident
involving cosmic dust. But if we honestly face what we've
uncovered in the past 30 years or so, one thing seems clear: To
believe that lifeless particles eventually endowed themselves
with a living awareness of their own existence - in the light of
modern knowledge - is to engage in the secret and irrational
worship of interstellar dust under the guise of atheism. In short
- the calculations point to God rather than sod as the Source of
our life.
HOW SURE ARE OUR CONCLUSIONS?
Let's ask this question: How sure are we that an accident
could not have created life, as over an against our confidence in
other conclusions. At the onset it's helpful to realize that
modern knowledge - and therefore science - is 'synthetic'. This
means that our conclusions are never known with certainty. They
are only held with a certain level of confidence. For example,
scientific progress is showing next year that what we believe
today to be true is, in fact, false. And we spend billions of
dollars on it annually. Now please don't misunderstand me. I'm
not saying that there's anything wrong with this. After all, as a
scientist I personally participate in the process. It's just that
we're never sure that what we think is true today will be true
tomorrow.
WHAT CAN WE PROVE?
In science we measure things. But there's always room for
reinterpretation. That's because tomorrow we may find something
new. But does that mean we can't "prove" anything? The answer is
no. Many things are believed on the basis of events that are
reproducable in either space or time. By mathematically analyzing
these events, we can prove that the truth of one belief is more
inevitable than another. As a practical matter, when the belief
becomes 'almost certain', we then accept it as "true".
IS THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW TRUE?
To illustrate the point let's ask: Is there a 'truth of
science' that almost everyone is willing to accept? While there
are several contenders, most would agree that the inverse square
law of gravity is true. But how sure are we that this law is
true? Newton intoduced it about 300 years ago. Knowing this, we
can estimate the highest possible confidence anyone can
rationally have in the law of gravity. When we've got the answer,
we'll then compare it to the certainty that an accident could not
have spontaneously generated simple protein.
WHAT MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE IS CONCEIVABLE?
Let's maximize our confidence in the law of gravity by
transforming all 5 billion people on Earth today into instant
scientists. We'll allow them 300 years (the time since Newton)
in which to do experiments in the inverse square law of gravity.
We'll also endow them with super human powers so that they only
need one second to start and complete each experiment. This means
they don't eat, they don't sleep - they don't do anything except
every second of their lives bring in another confirmation of the
inverse square law. And they do this for 300 years. At the end of
this time how sure would we be that the law of gravity is true?
As we'll see, it's far less sure than we are that something other
than chance created protein.
HOW DO THE TWO COMPARE?
To compare the two, we'll again fill both sides of our paper
with letters. Now let's ask: What volume of space do we need to
store all the letters whose total equals the certainty that the
inverse square law is true? The answer is surprising. It's a
cube less than 2 miles on a side. Now think about it. Forty
thousand universes, each 30 billion light years wide - is what's
needed to store the paper whose letter total equals the certainty
that chance can not produce even simple protein ..... while our
corresponding assurance that the inverse square law remains true
for the next experiment is a cube less than 2 miles on a side!
Though our example is oversimplified, it illustrates something
that is quite true: Accidents are a poor explanation for life.
IS IT TRUE WE'VE BEEN DESIGNED?
To compare a cube under 2 miles with 40,000 universes is to
liken the finite with the infinite. It's one thing to believe
something out of ignorance. But it's quite another to maintain
false beliefs when the light of day shows a more truthful way.
In science we use a principle called 'Occham's Razor'. Simply
put, the simplest explanation is the best explanation. Now what
can be simpler than the thesis: "Intelligence designed life"? If
so, what motivates us to deny the clear teaching of our new
scientific insights. Why do we deny that Intelligence designed
life?
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF LIFE?
Our world is full of 'intelligences'. You are an
intelligence. So am I. Since the human body is the most
sophisticated and complex machine known to man in the entire
universe, what would motivate us to deny that a Supreme
Intelligence designed it? Are we able to admit to the existence
of an Authority higher than ourselves? Or are we committed to
believe anything that perpetuates man as the highest authority?
Either way, one thing is sure: New scientific discoveries show
that accidents don't make life.
|