Non identical twins

There have been a few recent items in the news concerning 'twin' planets for our very own earth. They centre discoveries in other solar systems of planets of similar size and composition to the earth together with speculation that perhaps we could live there one day, or perhaps they contain life too.

Actually what they highlight is how special the earth is. For example these two recent discoveries are 'hot as hell'.

By faith

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Hebrews 11 v 3

Early days

It is truly amazing that we know so much now about our early days. For example, Africans do not have DNA which is specifically derived from Neanderthals, whereas people in the rest of the world do carry a small amount. This confirms the picture of human history derived from studying fossils. Neanderthal bones have not been found in Africa, so it isn’t surprising that their DNA is not there either. The fact that non-Africans have some of the DNA found in Neanderthal bones confirms that which geneticists knew from other studies: we have two distinct groups of human ancestors—those who left Africa in ancient times and those who stayed.

Quoted from an essay on Biologos

Twist on life

This TED talk describes an interesting twist on studies into the origin of life.

Cronin and his team are looking at inorganic matter (i.e. chemicals that don't contain carbon) for answers. There are, of course, huge quantities of speculation involved, and Cronin's willingness to carelessly indulge should make us wary.

This is unlikely to go anywhere. It is widely acknowledged that it is the unique properties of carbon that make complex life possible. The only other possible contender is Silicon but it is nowhere near as flexible. Organic (carbon based) chemistry has an unparalleled diversity in the compounds it can generate and it has the critical ability to be to form polymers. As an added bonus it is the fourth most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, helium and oxygen.

The only life we have evidence for is intrinsically tied to the unique nature of Carbon.

Evolution of birds

The development of birds from theropod dinosaurs is one that captures the imagination. It has also been captured in the fossil record with a 'warehouse full' of specimens available for consideration

A new find from Canada has uncovered a range of different feather configurations trapped inside amber. The beauty of fossils found in amber is that in comparison to their compressed counterparts in rock they are voluminous and three dimensional. They even preserve the colours.

Book Review: Reasons

Reasons edited by Thomas Gaston

This is a book that needed to be written.

It is, in overview, a panoramic look at some of the key intellectual reasons for believing in God, Jesus and the Bible, stringing them together in a compact and readable volume. And what a timely work it is. In the developed world faith is popularly regarded as nothing but superstition - something for the ignorant and uneducated. The evidence of this book illustrates that this is far from the truth.

Yet it doesn't ignore criticism and is even honest enough to draw the readers attention to possible objections to its arguments. But the overwhelming message is that Biblical faith in the 21st Century is robust and, contrary to popular belief, reachable by reason.

There are two halves to the book. Initially it looks at reasons for seeking. Why in this world of ever increasing secularism should we be interested in a God? The book begins with the wide angle lens examining the general philosophical reasons for asking the question, before moving to the scientific grounds of the finely tuned universe and the origin of life on earth. In terms of biology's witness of God this is where the book stops. In some ways this is a little disappointing, but it is equally important to recognise what the authors haven't put in. More on this later.

The next chapter looks at Consciousness and explains how consideration of this subject should lead us away from mere materialism. It speculates that quantum theory could provide an insight in to how consciousness works (although having suggested this it could do with more explanation of what quantum theory is and how it might relate to the problem of mind). The chapter is an important one but it in my opinion it also needs to be clearer that it is not advocating a kind of floaty soul that is separate from the body.

The next reason to seek comes from examining the evidence of human morality, before the first section concludes with what is the weakest chapter of the book, on The Problem of Evil.

In some ways this chapter is a little out of place here. Suffering is more likely to be seen as a reason not to seek God. But having included it in the book I didn't find the conclusions satisfying. The tone was at times condescending and a lot of space is used arguing over how much pain is required for there to be a problem, which all felt a little irrelevant. Then, when considering natural disasters such as the 2004 Tsunami we are told that this is not a theological event. I don't find this satisfactory, neither do I think that it is useful to explain the existence of pain as because it is only 'temporary'. Unfortunately the chapter only begins to address the key issues at the end when it says 'Suffering is mandatory for spiritual development'. This is the area that needs to be explored in far more depth.

But the next section gets us back on track with Reasons for Believing. It is crammed full of useful information from the textual reliability and historical accuracy of the Biblical texts to the evidence of prophecy, the nation of Israel, and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. There are many juicy morsels of information in these chapters that can't be conveyed properly in this short review, but certainly the gentle persuasion of the 'Resurrection' chapter is a particular triumph.

And here, after a short Epilogue, the book ends. But as alluded to above it is interesting to recognise what isn't included. There are no Intelligent Design type of arguments (that is if we don't include the very valuable chapter on abiogeneis). This is a great relief as they could have undermined the whole package. Though it does feel like there should be something more to say about life on earth. As yet this is still being worked through by Christian thinkers and a range of views exist. For example, there are Simon Conway Morris' ideas about convergent evolution making human beings an inevitability of the process of evolution, through to others who feel that the emergence of human beings required much more guidance. Either way it feels that the teleology of the earth's natural history should be an important topic.

The reader will leave this book amazed that such an enormous scope of argument has been covered in a little over 200 pages. This is the great value of the work. Such a wide range of issues surround belief in God, Jesus and the Bible, and in this one place a good number of them are dealt with expertly, each one building on the last.

The few criticisms discussed above certainly don't get in the way of me offering a hearty recommendation.

Dawkins finds Jesus

In perhaps his most famous book Richard Dawkins reaches an important conclusion.  He says:

...if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good you can expect little help from biological nature.  Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

And this is the reason why we need to teach Jesus Christ.  Of course Dawkins doesn't accept that but he has, through biology, recognised this deep human need to be led out of our natural state of selfishness and competition, to a position of co-operation and consideration of the benefit of others, even above ourselves.

This is precisely the power of Jesus, and it's not just a matter of the wise words that we have recorded, like “love your enemies”.  Its about action too.  Jesus is the master who chose to become a servant, he is the King who chose to humble himself to a robber's execution, he is the one who washed his disciples feet, he is the one of would give, give and keep giving to the point of exhaustion.

The apostle Paul also recognised this. He said 'I know that nothing good lives in me'. But he also saw that in Christ he had found the way out of this mess, the pathway to a bright future for society.

Scientific Thinking

The idea that the methods of physical science are quite simply the only intellectual methods and should therefore be extended to cover every subject matter, including our understanding of ourselves, was put forward early in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte and others. It is still a powerful faith, devoutly preached by many people today. Only radical confusion about the meaning of the word 'scientific' makes it seem plausible.

Mary Midgley in Science and Poetry

Self-replicating?

What brings DNA to life, what gives it meaning, is the cellular environment in which it is embedded... Genetic theorists with little biochemical understanding have been profoundly misled by the metaphors that Crick provided in describing DNA (and RNA) as 'self-replicating' molecules or replicators, as if they could do it all by themselves. But they aren't and they can't... You may leave DNA or RNA for as long as you like in a test-tube and they will remain inert: they certainly won't make copies of themselves... The functioning cell, as a unit, constrains the properties of it's individual components. The whole has primacy over its parts

Steven Rose, Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism
As quoted by Mary Midgley

The Romantic Poets...

...wrote against the dangers of the materialism that had became popular with the Age of Reason. This is not because they were anti-science but rather they saw the error in a purely reductionist approach. So Wordsworth writes:

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings:
Our meddling intellect
Misshapes the beauteous form of things:-
We murder to dissect

in The Tables Turned

A functional creation

In its conclusion The Lost World of Genesis One summarises the argument for a functional view of creation:

1) The Hebrew word translated "create" (bara) concerns assigning functions
2) The account begins in v2 with no functions (rather than no material)
3) The first three days pertain to the three major functions in life: time, weather, food
4) Days four to six pertain to functionaries in the cosmos being assigned their roles and spheres
5) The recurring comment that "it is good" refers to functionality (relative to people)
6) The temple aspect is evident in the climax of day seven when God rests - an activity in a temple

To a Butterfly

I'VE watched you now a full half-hour;
Self-poised upon that yellow flower
And, little Butterfly! indeed
I know not if you sleep or feed.
How motionless!--not frozen seas
More motionless! and then
What joy awaits you, when the breeze
Hath found you out among the trees,
And calls you forth again!

This plot of orchard-ground is ours;
My trees they are, my Sister's flowers;
Here rest your wings when they are weary;
Here lodge as in a sanctuary!
Come often to us, fear no wrong;
Sit near us on the bough!
We'll talk of sunshine and of song,
And summer days, when we were young;
Sweet childish days, that were as long
As twenty days are now.

________________________
STAY near me--do not take thy flight!
A little longer stay in sight!
Much converse do I find in thee,
Historian of my infancy!
Float near me; do not yet depart!
Dead times revive in thee:
Thou bring'st, gay creature as thou art!
A solemn image to my heart,
My father's family!
Oh! pleasant, pleasant were the days,
The time, when, in our childish plays,
My sister Emmeline and I
Together chased the butterfly!
A very hunter did I rush
Upon the prey:--with leaps and springs
I followed on from brake to bush;
But she, God love her, feared to brush
The dust from off its wings.

By William Wordsworth

Are the Genesis days 'ages'?

In an effort to make the Genesis text fit geological time it has been proposed by numerous people that the 6 days of creation are in fact a description of 6 ages, or long periods of time.

I don't think this is correct. The use of 'evening' and 'morning' to describe the extremities of each day signal to me that they are literal days that are being described.

But the argument comes back that the Hebrew word yom, that is translated 'day', is in other parts of scripture used to describe a period of time. This happens in expressions like 'in that day' where the writer is clearly pointing to a lengthy period of time much greater than 24 hours.

This may be true but the problem is that here yom is being used ias part of an idiomatic expression. If we remove the single word out of the whole phrase then it no longer still caries the whole phrase's meaning. For example, take the phrase "Watford played a long ball game". Here 'ball' is being used as part of an expression that means a type of pass in football. But if we take the word out of that context it is no longer correct to define ball as meaning pass. If it did then to say "Pass me the ball" would be a bit of a strange request.

This problem arises from trying to take a passage that was never intended to be a literal description of natural history and make it fit such a chronology.

What is so offensive about metaphysics?

Perhaps the most famous reading of Genesis chapter 1 was on Christmas Eve 1968 when the first ten verses were read from space via the Apollo 8 spacecraft.

Offence was taken by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an American atheist, who filed a lawsuit contesting that this was a violation of the separation between church and state.

This makes me ask the question, why do differing metaphysical views cause us such consternation? Why could she not accept it as an expression of someone else's faith, albeit one different to her own?

Undoubtedly whatever our worldview it is important to us, and for many of us it is important to try and share it with others. For the Christian the gospel is good news and therefore there is an imperative to share it. An atheist may look at religious wars and decide that for this reason they need to evangelise their own philosophy.

These can be seen as positive exertions of faith, but to actually go to the extent of complaining, or even suing someone, over the free expression of the poetry of Genesis 1 is baffling. Or is it?

We invest a great deal of ourselves in whatever our worldview is, so inevitably we will defend it. There is too the common need of 'I am right-ism' that makes us want to see other people finding our views persuasive.

This self-defence is a weakness. Those who are intellectually honest will accept the challenge to think and explore all possible alternatives without having to roll down the shutters. And those people will often be the less vocal and militant - because they don't need to be.

Marked contrasts

Whilst there have been some posts on this blog that highlight the ways in which Genesis relates itself to Ancient Near East mythologies, it is equally important to note the ways in which it contrasts.

In the ANE creation was made to serve the gods. But in the Genesis account creation is there for the benefit of humanity. The cosmos is good because it provides a home for us.

In the ANE people are also made to serve the gods, but in Genesis people are called into relationship with God, co-workers with him.

We really are the climax of creation.

The Bible and Mythology part 4

The emergence of dry land from the waters is a common element in Egyptian cosmology, and there it has a definite referent. That is, the emergence of the primeval hillock in cosmology reflectsnthe yearly relity of the fertile soil emerging in the aftermath of the inundation of the Nile. Thus it is clear that the emergence of dry land is associated with the growing of food.

The Lost World of Genesis 1 by John H Walton

Creation's Title

The first verse of Genesis 1, that grand opening statement, can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Some commentators see this as being a pre-creation that occurred before the actions of the following verses but Walton disagrees. Of the term 'beginning' he says (p45):

In Hebrew usage this adverb typically introduces a period of time rather than a point in time. We can see this most easily in Job 8:7

which says...

Your beginnings will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be.

So what Walton is suggesting is that verse 1 is actually referring to the period of the creation that follows in the rest of the chapter.

This suggests that verse 1 serves as a literary introduction to the rest of the chapter. This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that Genesis 2:1 concludes the seven-day report with the statement that the "heavens and earth were completed"

Oh no! Its happened again!

Having a bad case of deja vu. Hope this one turns out to have a happy ending...

Functional not Material

I'm enjoying reading 'The Lost World of Genesis One' at the moment. I'm hoping there will be a few posts to extract from it! John Walton's book looks at Genesis 1 within its ANE context and builds the thesis that 'creation' in that setting means functional, and not material as presupposed in our 21st century understanding.

ANE mythology asked about the purpose of the world around it rather than how it came into material existence. Therefore the Biblical account reflects that definition of the creation concept. For example:

Throughout Genesis 1 any number of possible meanings have been proposed for "good". In the history of interpretation it has been often been understood in moral/ethical terms or as a reference to the quality of the workmanship. While the Hebrew term could be used in any of those ways, the context indicates a different direction. We can find out what the author means when saying all of these things are "good" by inquiring what it would mean for something not to be good. Fortunately the near context offers us just such an opportunity: "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). This verse has nothing to do with moral perfection or quality of workmanship - it is a comment concerning function. The human condition is not functionally complete without the woman. Thus throughout Genesis 1 the refrain "it was good" expressed the functional readiness of the cosmos for human beings.

Love is a drug

This excellent video by Alistair Jennings illustrates the power of attraction. This is love as society often understands it. But the love of Jesus, agape, is different. It is a self sacrificing, faithful, constant love. A love that never fails and never depends upon our own beauty to keep it burning.

The limitations of reductionism

I've written on this before, but this quote from Martin Rees reinforces what I was trying to say:

Everything may be the outcome of processes at the subatomic level, but even if we know the relevant equations governing the micro-world, we can't, in practice, solve them for anything more complex than a single molecule. Moreover, even if we could, the resultant 'reductionist' explanation would not be enlightening. to bring meaning to complex phenomena, we introduce new 'emergent' concepts. (For example, the turbulence and wetness of liquids, and the textures of solids, arise from the collective behaviour of atoms, and can be 'reduced' to atomic physics, but these are important concepts in their own right; so, even more, are 'symbiosis', 'natural selection', and other biological processes.)

From Just Six Numbers

Augustine and the Fall

The Augustinian view of the fall involved the belief that a change occurred in humans' physical characteristics, for example the development of being able to suffer physical pain. From that moment the condition was passed down genetically to all Adam and Eve's offspring.

The following extract from The Cambridge Companion to Augustine illustrates his views:

Adam and Eve’s fall ushered into the world original sin, which is not an event
but rather a condition (De pecc. merit. et remis. 1.9.9–1.12.15). It is the condition
imposed by God as punishment on Adam and Eve for disobedience.
According to Augustine the condition includes dispossession from a naturally
perfect environment, the loss of natural immortality and the acquisition of susceptibility
to physical pain, fatigue, disease, aging, and rebellious bodily disorders,
especially sexual lust (De Gen. ad litt. 11.32.42; De civ. Dei 14.16–19). The
condition is not only pathological, it is inherited, infecting every descendant of
Adam and Eve. The condition is innate, not acquired; as Augustine puts it, it is
transmitted by propagation, not imitation (De pecc. merit. et remis.
1.9.9–1.12.15). Augustine’s view, then, is that our first ancestors squandered their
patrimony and our inheritance and – as if that were not bad enough – thereby
contracted a suite of infirmities that is passed on to all their progeny.

It is quite an understandable position for the time, and it does follow on from a naively literal reading of Genesis 2 & 3, but it loads onto the text a great deal more than what the words actually say. This tends to come out in the interpretations of Young Earth Creationists today (e.g. vegetarian lions).

Take the example of the curse on Eve's pain in childbearing. The pain involved in this is a direct result of the anatomy of the female pelvis and the size of a baby's head. For there to be no pain in childbirth one of the two would have to have been dramatically different previously. So an Augustinian view of the fall involves a whole re-design of human biology for a start. This seems to be a great deal more than the passages are actually saying, and recent science (particularly the findings of anatomically modern humans that pre-date Adam and Eve) confirms that it isn't actually true.

So in other words, the fall needs to be seen in a much more figurative way than Augustine thought all those years ago.

Augustine time

These words seem to be ahead of their time - though I don't have the original context to hand to check:

Then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneous with time. For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time - after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made.

St Augustine quoted in Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees

Augustine had some interesting things to say about faith and science, though his views on 'The Fall' have led theology down a wrong turn.

Theodicy and evolution

The notion of theodicy has been one of the most debated and discussed topics in Christianity for centuries. Here's the Wiki-definition:

Theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") is a theological or philosophical study which attempts to justify God’s intrinsic nature of omni-benevolence (all loving), omniscience (all knowing) and omnipotence (all powerful), despite the existence of evil which would otherwise stand to refute God's existence.

One of the simplest ways of reconciling this problem is to recognise that God has given us freedom. We have a choice in how we act and the choices we make have consequences. We can bring joy or sorrow, so you could say that suffering is the cost of freedom.

This is quite a straightforward concept when we are thinking about human action, but what about nature?

Nature has its own freedom. The laws are set and from then on the consequences are what they are. Tectonic plates move according to the laws of physics. In doing so they release minerals into the biosphere and help produce fertile ground. They are also the source of earthquakes, volcanoes and subsequent devastation.

Evolution helps us understand this natural freedom as applied to biology. Life parades a spectrum that befits its freedom of expression, from the beautiful forms on the wings of a butterfly, to the venomous poisons of the bite of a snake.

The philosophical question is why is this freedom so important?

The primate family tree

Its not so long ago that nature's genealogies were constructed by the painstaking cataloging and comparing of anatomical features. Whilst this technique has to a certain extent been successful it is too blunt an instrument for dissecting out the fine detail.

The genetic revolution has changed all that. In this recent paper scientists have taken a close look at the entire primate family:

We conduct a phylogenetic analysis to determine the origin, evolution, patterns of speciation, and unique features in genome divergence among primate lineages. The resultant phylogenetic tree is remarkably robust and unambiguously resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy. Our data provide a strong foundation for illuminating those genomic differences that are uniquely human and provide new insights on the breadth and richness of gene evolution across all primate lineages

.

The story unfolds over a period of about 90 million years and covers many different creatures. Some, like the orangutang, are seriously endangered now. One of the stand out features of the primate group is their brains. Being remarkably cerebral they have a large brain:body size ratio, and of course of all the primates in all the world there is one whose brain is bigger than them all!

Theistic Embryology?

This quote picks up on a theme I've written on before, but its better!

Why is there no controversy surrounding theistic embryology? Dissecting critical responses to theistic evolution.

Those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm evolutionary theory are said to espouse a position called "theistic evolution." The view holds the peculiar distinction of being reviled by both hard-line creationists (who call it "appeasement") and prominent atheist commentators (who deride it as fallacious). I argue that these critics typically fail to articulate objections that are specific to the view. Most creationist critics of theistic evolution object to one or both of these characteristics of the view: 1) its reliance on naturalistic explanation, a feature common to all scientific theorizing; or 2) its embrace of "random" causal events, a feature common to myriad scientific explanations. Most atheist critics of theistic evolution object to its openness to supernatural explanation, a feature of religious belief in general. Such criticisms, valid or not, fail to address anything specific to theistic evolution. In other words, attacks on theistic evolution are usually attacks on theism or attacks on evolution, but rarely represent specific criticisms of the theistic evolution position. To better understand the controversy surrounding theistic evolution, I propose that critiques of the position be considered in light of a lesser-known position we may (with tongue in cheek) call "theistic embryology." Theistic embryology describes the thinking of those who simultaneously express Christian belief and affirm basic theories in human developmental biology. Although the logic is indistinguishable from that of theistic evolution, the view is uncontroversial and the term "theistic embryology" is practically non-existent. I suggest that critiques of theistic evolution be subjected to the "theistic embryology test." Most critiques that claim to identify weaknesses in theistic evolution make arguments that are equally damaging to "theistic embryology" and so fail the test. Critiques that fail this whimsical test are likely to be arguments against belief, or against naturalistic explanation, and should be considered as such.

(http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2009/05/theistic-embryology-gathering-storm.html).


Thanks to Ken Gilmore for the find.

100 up!

February has been a hectic month, hence the lack of activity on this blog, but as the calendar prepares to turn over once more I've noticed that I have made 99 postings since the blog started. It is very satisfying to look back at all the information and ideas that have been collected together since its inception concerning this important topic.

A big thanks go to those who read it and chip in with occasional comments. I'm acutely aware that a lot of what I write is simply someone else's ideas re-articulated, so, to everyone I talk to or whose books I read, as they say in Yorkshire, "Ta!"

Moral Development

An interesting idea to think about is that of moral development. The general thesis is that human society and civilisation has developed morally over time. Take as an example the slave trade. Historically the slave trade has been a normal part of society but now, in the western world at least, it has been abolished.

We are not talking about individual moral development here, in fact you could make a good argument that individual morality is in decline, but this is about society in general. The concept is relevant to thinking about anthropology from a spiritual point of view.

The differences between Old Testament and New Testament ethics have often been remarked upon, to the point where some have even suggested that the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New.

This is where the suggestion of moral development comes in. God remains the same, his principles never change, but their outworking depends on the level of development of the people. This is exactly the same phenomenon that we see in parents all over the world. A parent may want to instil in their child the principles of kindness. When dealing with a toddler they might utilise the 'naughty step' to help the child consider when their actions have fallen short of the mark. Yet for teenage children this technique is likely to be ineffective. A reasoned discussion is probably more appropriate for them (though you could try putting them on the step afterwards as a last resort!) Loud and vocal anger is another good way of telling infants of the seriousness of their wrongdoing, but it is rarely as effective with older children.

If we imagine human society as an individual going through childhood and towards maturity then we can begin to understand why God seems different over time. The Mosaic Law came at a time where the people had no formal justice system, but things are very different now. Most countries have very sophisticated systems in place to keep law and order – society has developed. This development is more acutely apparent when we consider early man as the product millions of years of competition and communities of humans thrust together under the principles of survival of the fittest. The baseline of moral man is pretty low. Yet slowly, and surely, God has led humanity to the point where 'at just the right time' Christ came into the world. Human civilisation was finally ready to meet Immanuel.

An interesting question to ask is why individual morality hasn't developed in the same way as society has?

Do Bluetits Remember?

We have seen four springs living in our current house and 2010 was the first without Bluetits nesting in the box hanging from the brickwork. There is a sense of anticipation each year as the winter thaws and we wait expectantly. The endeavors of these tiny birds, and they do get tinier as the endeavor takes its toll, never fail to amaze us. Yet this year we were left disappointed.

Could it be that our regular family have sworn never to return? 2009 was a harrowing year.

There was one little fledgling that didn't make it. Perhaps it was the runt of the litter, perhaps it was genetically predestined not to make it, but when this baby Bluetit emerged from the security of its wooden cradle its first flight ended up on the hard floor of our patio. The plight was softened by the frantic fluttering of its wings, but once down there was no way of getting back up. Its only hope was to hide. It hid behind our plant-pots and it hid behind overhanging shrubs but by far the best place it found was between the folds of our deflated paddling pool. It stayed there for two days and nights yet encouragingly its parents refused to abandon it. They still nursed it, collected grubs for it, sang for it and waited upon it. We watched on, hoping that all this care would give it the strength to fly off one day.

That time came on the third day and it boldly hopped out of its hiding place...

... only for our neighbour's cat to hop out from behind the bushes and swallow it down whole.

The shrieks that went up in our household were enough to send the moggy scampering but the damage was already done. All that was we could do was watch the heartbreaking sight of the fledgling's parents singing for their child, searching for it in all the usual hiding places, staring in bemusement.

Nature red in tooth and claw.

An improbable bang

The Big Bang defies probability. How could an accident produce something so ordered? Roger Penrose tells us just how unlikely it is that we should have a universe that is compatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of

one part in 10 to the power of 1230.

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full. Even if we were to write a "0" on each separate proton and each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

Its important to say that Penrose's use of 'Creator' here is not in any theistic sense.

Walking the Planck

Max Planck, a German physicist who died in 1947, is regarded as one of the fathers of Quantum Theory – the branch of physics which deals with the tiniest packets of matter that have a kind of dual personality, behaving like both a wave and a particle. Its an intriguing world where nothing is certain and some things are impossible to measure.

Bearing his name is the concept of the 'Planck length'. This minute distance is the length at which we enter the quantum world and therefore is the smallest measure of length that actually means anything. Below this distance space, time, gravity and all of conventional physics dissolve away.

Following on from this is the 'Planck time'. This is the length of time it would take a photon of light to travel the 'Planck length' – and its 10 to the power of -43 seconds! In a similar way to the Planck Length any time less than this is effectively meaningless, for the reasons given above.

The Planck time has deep philosophical implications. It means that the Universe effectively 'began' at this age, this is actually when time began. It also means that we cannot be sure of anything that happened 'before'*. Therefore, any world view that depends on determining what might have occurred prior to the Plank Time is on very shaky ground.


* NB Even the word 'before' is inappropriate here. Its like asking whats south of the South Pole!

A 10 dimensional universe

Superstring theory calculates that the universe has ten dimensions. Very early on there was an amicable split. Four dimensions expanded and went on to produce the observable universe's space and time (3+1 dimensions). The other six shrivelled up so as to be invisible, although they still exist. As Dean Overman remarks in 'A case against accident and self-organization':

For the purpose of the formation of life, this split was fortunate, because carbon-based life could not exist in any other than three spatial dimensions. Gravity would not allow for stable planetary systems unless it functioned in three spatial dimensions because it follows an inverse square law which requires the force of gravity to decrease as distance increases. In four spatial dimensions, the force of gravity would fall to a fraction of one-eighth its power (rather than one quarter) for every doubling of distance, and in five spatial dimensions, the force would fall to one-sixteenth its strength for every doubling of distance. Moreover, in more than three spatial dimensions, the force of electromagnetism would not function in a manner which would allow for life, because electrons would either spiral away from or into the nuclei.

Lego DNA

The problems with trying to piece together a plausible mechanism for the origin of life multiply up. Its not just about thinking up possible scenarios where the various complicated molecules could be manufactured and thrown together. Scientists also have envisage a scheme that explains the origin of the whole system of genetic information with its unique language, replicating systems, translation devices.

This video provides a great animated version of what some of that entails. Looks like Lego DNA to me!

An Anthropic Biological Principle?

For a while now I've been wondering if there is a biological parallel to the Anthropic Principle in physics (i.e. that the universe has a number of physical properties that are fine tuned to a level that allows life to exist).

An example of this could be the properties of a chemical like DNA polymerase.

For evolution to occur organisms need to be able to replicate themselves exceptionally well, but not perfectly. If they are not good enough at this process then there is no hope of any useful genetic information being passed down from generation to generation. On the other hand if they are too good at it then there is no room for error – errors that have the potential to bring about innovation and thereby evolution.

One of the biggest players in this process is DNA polymerase. This clever piece of kit is responsible for the putting together of new DNA strands and even has the ability to proof-read the code as it goes along. This, together with other factors, means that the copying process is over 99.9% accurate - just right.

It would be interesting to know how bad this copying process could get and still be viable for life, but certainly there can't be much margin for error.