Biologic Institute

Steve Meyer recently gave a lecture summarizing the arguments put forward in his book Signature in the Cell [1] to an audience of 1,400 (including me) at Biola University. [2] After Steve sat down, two of his critics, Steve Matheson and Arthur Hunt, were invited to put their questions to him.

Matheson and Hunt both referred to my work and to Meyer’s use of it, Matheson having since posted his points on his blog. [3] As is often the case when complex subjects are debated in front of an audience, things got a bit muddled.  I stood up at one point with the intent of commenting but wasn’t able to get the attention of the moderator, so I’ll comment here instead. more…

It’s no secret that the scientific establishment is decidedly against not just the idea of intelligent design but also the idea of debating that idea.  They just wish the whole subject would go away.  That being the case, most establishment-minded scientists will, I suspect, thoroughly disapprove of BIO-Complexity, a new science journal that positively welcomes the scientific debate [1].

Now, I usually sympathize with those who want troublemakers to stop making trouble.  Trouble has a bad name for good reasons.  But on the other hand, we often find ourselves looking back with gratitude at certain troublemakers of the past—people who persisted in shaking things up, usually at great personal cost, until their cause won the day.

It seems to me that the trouble ID has brought on the science academy is of this more noble kind.  Like all scientific controversies, this one is about ideas.  And while ideas can be very powerful, they only become dangerous when no one is allowed to critique them openly.  Where scrutiny is encouraged, the worst that an idea can be is false.  Where it is forbidden, things can get much worse (as history shows).

more…

Reading Stuart Kauffman’s book At Home in the Universe some fourteen years ago, I encountered the following:

I hope to persuade you that life is a natural property of complex chemical systems, that when the number of different kinds of molecules in a chemical soup passes a certain threshold, a self-sustaining network of reactions—an autocatalytic metabolism—will suddenly appear. Life emerged, I suggest, not simple, but complex and whole, and has remained complex and whole ever since… The secret of life, the wellspring of reproduction, is not to be found in the beauty of Watson-Crick pairing, but in the achievement of catalytic closure. [1]

When chemicals react, they produce different chemicals. So the idea here—call it Kauffman’s conjecture—was that mixtures with a sufficient number of different chemicals are bound to give rise to local compositions that continually replenish themselves through a self-catalyzed network of chemical reactions.  Those special compositions would typically differ from the original mixture, but since they make more of themselves, they should be able to ‘grow’ by establishing themselves repeatedly in local pockets.  The ability to propagate in this way, if proven, would be something like reproduction, only at the low level of chemical composition rather than at the high level of organismal form. more…

Last February I mentioned the events that would commemorate the life and work of Charles Darwin in 2009. I had no idea at the time that I would be invited to participate in one of these events. But there I was, precisely 150 years after On the Origin of Species first appeared, seated with other scientists in front of a packed room that featured, among other interesting things, a life-sized model of a baleen whale.  The venue was the National Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, and the occasion was a panel discussion titled Design without a Designer? [1] The “bold generation” of young thinkers turned up in droves, listening intently as the discussion went well beyond its advertised ninety minutes.

To my knowledge the event wasn’t recorded, so a transcript may never appear.  I’ll include my statements below (which I had to prepare in advance for translation).  I have to confess, though, that the mere fact that this took place at all impressed me beyond anything that was said.  You have to wonder what Darwin would have thought had he known that his theory would still be the subject of scientific debate a century and a half later.  Does anything become healthy after so many years of limping along? more…

Scientists sometimes find themselves wishing things were different.  In one sense that’s a thoroughly unremarkable observation.  After all, scientists are human, and humans have always found themselves wishing things were different.

But what if some of the things scientists wish were different are the very things they have devoted themselves to studying?  In other words, forget about salaries, teaching loads, and grant funding.  What if some scientists want the brute facts of their own field of study to be other than what they really are?

As odd as it may seem, particularly to non-scientists, that tension between preference and reality has always been a part of doing science.  Like everyone else, scientists don’t just have ideas—they favor them… even promote them.  And for scientists, as for everyone else, sometimes those cherished ideas are just plain wrong.

more…

Biologic Institute welcomes three European scientists this month, the first (we hope) of many. [1] Professor Matti Leisola, the Dean of Chemistry and Materials Science at Helsinki University of Technology in Finland, brings a wealth of experience on the structure and function of enzymes, including their responses to engineered changes.  His research team has made a huge impact in their field, with well over a thousand references to their work in the scientific literature.

more…

When we think of simple, elegant, unifying principles in science, we think of physics.  It’s not surprising then that physicists who examine living systems are looking for principles of this kind.

And it seems they have found one.  Simply stated, it is that biological processes tend to be optimal in cases where this can be tested.  Life’s complexity can make it hard to pinpoint what “optimal” means, but sometimes physical limits provide a crisp definition.  Because these limits cannot possibly be exceeded, they serve as an objective standard of perfection.  Interestingly, in cases where it is clearly beneficial to edge right up to this standard, that’s exactly what life seems to do. more…

Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself.  Although simple autocatalytic versions of self-replication have previously been demonstrated, the complexity of the system described today—complete with GPS navigation, DVD player, and onboard WiFi—has taken everyone by surprise.  In the minds of many, this discovery has forever altered the once fundamental distinction between life and non-life.

Reactions from the automotive industry have, understandably, been less philosophical.  One executive, who wished to remain unnamed, characterized the development as “altogether unhelpful.”  An assembly plant worker was less restrained: “This is unreal… I just hope they quarantine the [expletive] things before this gets out of hand.”
more…

It’s a big year for all things Darwin.  This month, two centuries after his birth, we commemorate the man and his accomplishments.  And in November, a century and a half after On the Origin of Species was published, we commemorate the beginnings of the theory by which we all know him.

But how exactly should we think of his theory?  Is it to be remembered the way we remember the man—as an important part of the past?  Or is it to be remembered as something more than that—as an intellectual seed that grew into something that thrives to this day?

Many, of course, would like to think of Darwin’s theory in these flourishing terms.  But the growth of something else makes this view increasingly hard to hold.  We refer here to the seldom discussed but steadily expanding body of peer-reviewed scientific work that refuses to square with Darwinism.

more…

The parting advice given to Caltech’s graduating class of 2008 was to tell good stories. In his commencement address, science journalist Robert Krulwich emphasized that “scientists have to tell stories to nonscientists, because science stories have to compete with other stories about how the universe works and how it came to be.” [1] He warned that “to protect science and scientists—and this is not a gentle competition—you’ve got to get in there and tell your version of how things are, and why things came to be.”

Krulwich is right about the importance of communicating science clearly to nonscientists. But his suggestion that the strength of science lies in storytelling is troublesome. Quoting E. O. Wilson, Krulwich proposed that “science, like the rest of culture, is based on the manufacture of narrative…. We all live by narrative.”

Huh?

Narrative is clearly a component of science, but the basis? Shouldn’t less manufactured things like observation and analysis be given that spot? If not, then the “protection” that Krulwich advocates looks to be nothing more than a power grab. He surely doesn’t intend this, but neither does he articulate just how a story-based science can escape it.

more…