Episode Transcript
Welcome to Faith and Science. I'm Dr. John Ashton.
Just last week I had meetings at a leading Australian University to discuss putting the final touches to another research grant application. And I think I've had four successful grants just at this particular university, and so this will be the fifth one in the series, I think. And it was interesting in that the grants are awarded obviously on the basis of the research you're going to do, but also on the publication record or the research success of the senior researchers involved in the grant and as the partner investigator.
So I'm working as an industry partner investigator with university researchers. It was interesting as they ranked the different researchers, scientists get ranked according to their publications. I was interested to see that I was ranked in the top 300 scientists in Australia across science fields, and was the leading scientist in my field in industry, as opposed to scientists working full time in universities who have a lot more time, of course, to spend on pure research.
So that was very encouraging. But the reason why I mentioned this is, and I work in the area of chemistry, but one of the most highly cited chemists in the world is James M. Tour, who works at Rice University in the United States.
And I mentioned his name before, his surname spelled T-O-U-R James M Tour. And you can google him. And he's written a number of interesting articles.
But one article that came out just a couple of years ago was an article he put together on the “Origin of Life, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creation and Faith”. And one of the reasons why I'm interested in my James M Tour’s views on things is that he is a synthetic chemist. So a synthetic chemist is a chemist that uses known chemical reactions to build new compounds or perhaps to mimic synthetically compounds that exist in nature.
So a lot of compounds exist in nature that are very, very difficult to copy. And so these are compounds that might be produced in plant or might be produced in an animal bio system. And so these chemicals are often very specific and they're synthesised using unique chemical pathways in the plant or the animal.
And so to try and replicate these conditions in the laboratory can be quite difficult. And so he is a world authority in this area, so he really understands the problem of chemistry as it relates to evolution. Now, we also know that from our biochemistry, now that living organisms are extremely complex in terms of their biochemistry and the complexity as such, and the fact that you've got these different molecular machines that form, their operations work in harmony, and so you have these quite complex chemistry systems that are working together to enable living things to function, to be alive and to function. And so on the basis of that, of course, I personally believe in the biblical creation account. But for other scientists, a growing number of scientists, it is becoming very obvious that what we observe scientifically in nature has the hallmarks of what we call intelligent design.
In other words, it is so statistically impossible to occur by chance, the chances of it occurring by chance are so high that we would class them as absolutely impossible. And there are so many systems that are like this that you've got millions, billions of systems that are statistically impossible to occur by random chance.
And this is one of the major hurdles for people who propose that life arose by some sort of random chemical reactions that enabled the structures in living organisms to be synthesised. And so, as a synthetic chemist, James Tour writes that he's often been labelled as an intelligent design proponent. But it's interesting how he says, I'm not. And I was interested in the reason why he said he isn't. He says, because, and the reason is that he does not know how to use science to prove intelligent design.
And so he says that he's sympathetic to the arguments and he finds some of them intriguing, but he doesn't want to be involved in intelligent design. And really, when you think about it, it's very difficult to probably come up with some scientific basis for proving intelligent design. And I thought, this is really interesting.
However, we would argue that on the basis that so many of these things are statistically impossible and yet they're there, they certainly fit the biblical scenario of a creator who obviously was very intelligent and had the power to create them. And so that's why it's interesting that James Tour writes, as a modern day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools. And he says he “cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design”. So it's interesting that he says that, and I think it reflects deep consideration of this, because often we rush into this evidence for intelligent design, but really it's something you can't prove. I would say that what we see suggests intelligent design, but it's important to remember that we can't prove it.
However, it's interesting. In another article he wrote, it is clear that chemists and biologists are clueless with regard to the origin of life. And he says that he wrote, quote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will, but that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful and hopeful”.
And as I said, I'm reading his quote to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer and possibly a radically different scientific theory. “The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: It is a mystery”. So that was his statement. I think it's very important that here is a scientist that really understands the issue of synthetic chemistry.
He really understands the issue of the chemistry required to synthesise from nonliving chemicals, living organisms, or to synthesise new body parts within a living organism via new genetic codes and so forth. And so it's very important, and it's interesting that he points out that nobody understands them. Now, a lot of textbooks make assertions that people do know, but my own literature searches, I know of no mechanism that satisfactory explains a mechanism to produce new, viable body parts that work. And of course, prebiotic chemistry, that is the chemistry required to form the first living organisms. And it's sometimes called a biogenesis as well. He points out that even in the article that he wrote discussing the origin of life, he never addressed the issue of information.
And he writes that the information or coding within the DNA or RNA that corresponds to the sequence of nucleic acids is primarily the entire discussion of life. He says, some would rightly argue that the information is even more fundamental than the matter upon which is encoded. And he says, “I merely showed that the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information”.
He points out that the code is analogous to the difference between the Library of Congress and a big box of alphabetical letters. The library has a huge amount of embedded information, while the random box of letters has little. So the origin of the first life is the nail holding the coffin close on the emergence of biological evolution without that first life or simple cell, which requires the four molecule types which we abbreviate, ACT and G, of course, plus information and all proposals regarding biological evolution are without a base of life.
And he points out, it's difficult to discuss biology without life, and so it's very important. So these are the observations of James Tour. And again, if you google James M Tour, Rice University, and the heading the “Origin of Life, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creation and Faith”, you'll see his articles there.
There are also articles on his own website. So when you google James M Tour, you'll see his website there. And it's interesting, he says, even if we were given all the molecules needed to complete stereochemical purity, so stereochemistry is a chemistry where in some chemical reactions, the molecule has the choice of being what we call either a right handed or a left handed molecule.
So if you look at your hand, if you hold up your right hand and then hold up your left hand, you can see they're pretty well identical, except that one is the mirror image of the other. If you hold your right hand up to a mirror, you see essentially your left hand. Now, you might have some scars on your right hand that aren't on your left hand, and a ring or something like that.
But essentially what it is, is you can't put your right hand in a left handed glove. It doesn't fit, because although you have the same fingers and fingernails and everything, and that would be the same, you could have the same molecules and atoms and so forth, there are these different arrangements of those where one's the mirroring each of the other, and that's stereochemistry, part of stereochemistry, and where we have right handed and left handed images. And so it's interesting in nature, when in living organisms, when they produce these molecules, they produce either a pure right handed one or a pure left handed one.
Whereas in the laboratory, when we make the reaction, we get what is called a racemic mixture, which is a 50 50 mixture of both right and left handed. And so that's why I was saying, even if we had all the molecules and could somehow make them in this stereochemical purity, so they're all pure right handed or left handed. And we have the information code.
He says, could a cell be constructed using the chemical and biochemical tools that we have today? And he says, I've written about such a hypothetical experiment and how it would be impossible, using today's expertise, even to construct the lipid bilayer, which surrounds the mechanism of a cell. And so that's namely the exterior packaging that holds the cell nanomachinery in place. And so he goes on to point out that just the lipid biolayer, which itself surrounds thousands of nanosystems, is beyond our ability to synthesise.
And this is a really, really serious problem for the theory of the origin of life. And even if you're pushing into outer space, I mean, I can remember seeing an interview with Stephen Dawkins on, who was pushed hard on this point, and he, you know, maybe something along the lines, well, maybe life came here from outer space, but our understanding is that the same chemicals, the same atoms, exist throughout the universe and that the same chemical reactions are going to be, or the chemical reactions are going to be governed throughout the universe by the same laws we observe here on earth. And so the whole problem of the formation of life, again, is impossible.
And so here, in my way of thinking, although we can't prove it scientifically, it points to the fact that there must be a different explanation for this. And I think the explanation that fits the data is the biblical account of creation by a self existing God that was not created. Because, after all, why should anything exist? Why should we be here? And I've often thought about this on my walks and at other times, too.
Why does anything exist? But it does. We're here, we're alive, we talk, we communicate, we enjoy things. We live on this planet, and we exist.
And the Bible account talks about the creator is a self existing one outside time. And so he created space. So he's obviously outside space. He's outside this universe, he's outside time, and he's self existent. And to me, that is a picture that fits the science much better than this theory of evolution that’s being taught to people. And he talks about the conclusion of the thought experiment is that life based upon amino acids, nucleotides, saccharides and lipids is an anomaly.
Life should not exist anywhere in our universe. Life should not even exist on the surface of the earth. Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago, the requisite compounds could be found in some cave or undersea vent, and somehow or other, they assembled themselves into the first cell. He points out that if you have knowledge of chemical or biochemical synthesis or nanosystem assembly—I encourage you to read the article that he wrote on the origin of life and judge for yourself if I'm wrong—he says, then enlighten me on my error. If I'm correct, then ponder how far afield we have gone in projecting to the public our knowledge of life's origin.
And I think this is an important point that he really hits on in this article. And as I said earlier, if you google James M Tour origin of Life or creation?, creation, evolution, you'll see his articles there. He points out that, okay, if there is someone who can explain it, come and see him and talk to James M Tour. But if he's correct that it is absolutely impossible, then by continuing to educate young people and the public that this is how we came to be here, in my view, is a very, very serious moral issue. It's morally very, very wrong.
And so, as I said here, we have one of the top synthetic chemists in the world pointing out it's absolutely impossible. And also one of the other things he points out in this article is, and he writes, there is a severe discord between the claims of origin of life researchers and the actual state of research. And he says it's time to call out on the research until we can define what would constitute an advancement rather than sophistry.
And he then goes on to a slightly different tack in this article. He says some people were disconcerted and even angry that he signed a statement with many other scientists. And that was the statement that you can read on the DissentFromDarwin.org website. The statement says, “We are sceptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for darwinian theories should be encouraged”.
And as I said, that statement now is known as “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. And he writes that he still agrees with that statement as well. He says, “I have spoken at length with biologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians and geneticists in order to better understand evolution. Some were gracious in helping me to appreciate their positions based upon the data. Others were less gracious, although they supplied me with voluminous material to read”. And he says, “Here are some of the things that I learned. Some biologists say that ‘random mutation and natural selection’ have long been recognised by many evolutionists themselves to be insufficient to account for the complexity of life”. And “they cite research from the 1960s and 1970s suggesting that neutral drift is quantitatively more important than natural selection”, etcetera. “Some biologists suggest that the core of evolutionary studies for the last several decades has not centred on the sufficiency of Darwinian Theory, defined as ‘random mutation and natural selection’.
(So maybe those biologists should join me in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)”, he writes.
But one of the important things is that he points out, is that “evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs and time, and the theory of universal common descent”. And “this is the idea”, of course, “that all life shares a common ancestor”, and points out that “for those less trained in science, this theory does not propose, for example, that humans evolved or descended for chimpanzees, but humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor in the past”.
But he goes on that many “others find common descent insufficient to explain parts of the data. For example, humans have ~20,000 protein-coding genes, which is only ~1.5% of DNA in the entire human genome, and it is within that 1.5% that common descent studies are primarily (though not exclusively) focused”. A large scale project institute in 2003 by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, called the Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements, seeks to determine the role of the remaining 98.5%
of the genome that was formerly poorly called “junk DNA”, but is better called “intergenic regions”. And so the abbreviation for that research is ENCODE. And the ENCODE evidence that part or even much of the intergenic regions have regulatory elements that can affect gene transcription.
So the building of RNA and then the construction of enzymes that regulate and build biological systems. So it's involved in really complex chemistry.
And also there's work on orphan genes that cast new light on the uniqueness of some of the genetic information. Orphan genes are considered unique to narrow taxons and generally a species. So some interpret the ENCODE data and orphan genes as markers for uncommonness. And even further, some argue that biological similarities between modern humans and other hominids, for example, can be considered as common design parameters and not need a common descent model.
And so what they're saying is that these are things that God created uniquely different. They don't have to have a common descent thing.
And he later writes, “As a chemist, and one that builds functional molecular nano-systems, I can give some informed input. For several decades, I have been building molecular cars with functional motors, wheels, axles and chassis molecular nanosubmarines with light-activated motors and fluorescent pontoons, where many parts have to work in unison and be planned to work in unison during redesign of major features. Even small changes in desired function can send the synthesis all the way back to step 1. In biology, the mechanisms for such transformations are complete mysteries.”
And he says, “I posit that the gross chemical changes needed for macroevolution (defined here as the origin of major organismal groups, i.e., of body plans, are not understood and presently cannot even suggest the mechanisms, let alone observe them. Any massive functional change in a body part would require multiple concerted lines of variation”.
And so essentially, he's saying that as he looks at the chemistry, the evidence is just overwhelming that the chemical reactions required to design and underpin new body parts occurring by chance are absolutely impossible. So one of the important things that comes out of his article, which is quite long, but I think, well worth reading, is that there is this growing evidence.
The more we study the chemistry of living systems, it becomes clearer and clearer that mechanical evolution using mutations and natural selection cannot explain the diversity of life that we see.
It's interesting that he writes, “Based on my faith in the biblical text”, and he says, yes, “I do believe… that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwellin, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve”. He says, and he's open there, that “As for many of the details of the time spans”, he said, “I personally become less clear”.
And so he's very open about these things. But he says that he can't allegorize the book of Genesis. He sees that as an explanation.
Of course, I do too. But it's interesting. He concludes his article by saying, and this is his words, “As a scientist and a Christian (Messianic Jew), I am unsure of many things in both science and faith. But my many questions are not fundamental to my salvation. Salvation is based on the finished work of Jesus Christ…, my confession in him as Saviour, and my belief in his physical resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the physical resurrection is an atypical example where God works beyond the normally observed physical laws of science in order to accomplish his purposes. Therefore, it's called a miracle, and thanks be to God for his indescribable gift”.
So I thought that was a very, very interesting article by a really top chemist that really understands chemistry. The bottom line, evolution has never occurred. There's no scientific mechanism to explain how the evolution of new body parts, new type, new animals, and plants can occur.
The only explanation we have at the present time is divine creation, and the biblical explanation fits the data really well.
You've been listening to Faith and Science. I'm Dr. John Ashton, and remember, if you want to re listen to this programme, just Google 3abnaustralia.org.au click on the radio button and the listen and a number of programmes will come up there.
Remember, you can also listen to my interviews on evolution on the programme Evolution Impossible. It's available as a TV series and also you can listen to it on the radio and also science conversations where I discuss in detail the chapters in my book Evolution Impossible.
I'm Dr. John Ashton. Have a great day. You've been listening to a production of 3ABN Australia radio.
