Dueling Chemists over Philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Plug for Stephen Meyer’s ID Book!

Philosopher Thomas Nagel’s endorsement of Stephen Meyer’s ID book has generated dueling letters to the Times Literary Supplement from two chemists. The exchange is quite informative. The first came from a British chemist, Stephen Fletcher, who scolded Nagel on December 4th, and the second came, on December 9th, from another British chemist, John Walton, who in turn gave Fletcher a sassing.

This, as they say, is getting interesting!

I offer Walton’s complete letter here:

Sir, – The resilience of the “prebiotic soup” myth, in spite of torrents of counter-evidence, is truly astonishing. Even professionals such as Stephen Fletcher (Letters, December 4), criticizing Thomas Nagel’s recommendation of Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer (Books of the Year, November 27), apparently still believe in it. Fletcher asserts that “Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record”.

Actually the operation of neoDarwinian natural selection depends on the prior existence of entities capable of self-replication. Variants are produced in their genetic material by mutations, the variants are copied by the organism’s biochemical machinery, and then natural selection ensures the most “fit” survive. Before the arrival of organisms capable of reproduction, this process could not operate. In the words of the renowned evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky: “Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms”. It follows that, even in principle, some quite different explanation is required to account for the origin of life. Fletcher is pinning his hopes on a supposed RNA world. He tells us: “Indeed, before DNA there was another hereditary system at work, less biologically fit than DNA, most likely RNA (ribonucleic acid)”.

It is an amusing irony that while castigating students of religion for believing in the supernatural, he offers in its place an entirely imaginary “RNA world” the only support for which is speculation! Intense laboratory research has failed to produce even one nucleotide (RNA component) under geologically plausible conditions. As for the chains of nucleotides required for the RNA world, there are insuperable problems associated with their information content, as well as the chemical selectivity needed for their assembly. Furthermore, the earth’s oldest Precambrian rocks show very good evidence that life was present from the start, so the half-billion years Fletcher counts on were actually not available for chemical evolution.

Rather than just kowtowing to the creaky naturalist “prebiotic soup” scenario, Meyer engages with the whole range of origin of life problems. Anyone interested in discovering where the evidence leads will find this a fascinating book.

JOHN C. WALTON
School of Chemistry, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews

And here was Stephen Fletcher’s letter on December 4th:

Sir, – The belief that we share this planet with supernatural beings is an old one. Students of magic and religion have identified innumerable varieties of them – gods, devils, pixies, fairies, you name it. A familiar motif is that they operate at the very fringes of perception. While the scullery maid sleeps, they are busy in the kitchen making the milk go sour. For a society with no concept of bacteria, this is, perhaps, a forgivable conceit. But for a modern university professor to take this idea seriously is, I think, mind-blowing.

In the recent TLS “Books of the Year” (November 27), Thomas Nagel recommends Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design. “Intelligent Design” is of course a code phrase to obscure a malicious and absurd thesis; namely, that a supernatural being has interfered in the evolution of life on this planet. If Nagel wishes to take this notion seriously, very well, let him do so. But he should not promote the book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect.

In describing Meyer’s book, Nagel tells us that it “. . . is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin” (my italics). Well, no. Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record.

Compounding this error, Nagel adds that “Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause” (my italics again). Again, this is woefully incorrect. Natural selection does not require DNA; on the contrary, DNA is itself the product of natural selection. That is the point. Indeed, before DNA there was another hereditary system at work, less biologically fit than DNA, most likely RNA (ribonucleic acid). Readers who wish to know more about this topic are strongly advised to keep their hard-earned cash in their pockets, forgo Meyer’s book, and simply read “RNA world” on Wikipedia.

STEPHEN FLETCHER
Department of Chemistry, Loughborough University, Ashby Road, Loughborough

And here’s Thomas Nagel’s endorsement of Stephen Meyer’s book (which got things stirred up in the first place):

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

And here’s Stephen Meyer playing banjo (just kidding):

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Dueling Chemists over Philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Plug for Stephen Meyer’s ID Book!

  1. ogatoprecambriano says:

    This Walton fella also have given an endorsement to Meyer’s book, so this “reply” is not at all surprising.
    It’s not surprising also that work that have never been submited to peer-reviewing process, arrogantly claim to have scientific credentials and compeling evidence. That’s usual and fatuous ID rethoric.
    Of course ALL the MANY scientists that didn’t see the scientific merit of these endeavours, and are unimpressed by it’s “compeling” evidence, are just a bunch of intolerants aderents of the widespread dogma blah-blah-blah, etc.

  2. santitafarella says:

    Ogato:

    Let us concede that whoever is motivated to write a letter to the Times Literary Supplement is probably, well, animated by the debate itself, and has an opinion.

    So what?

    Isn’t it obvious that Fletcher is equally motivated—by his atheism?

    And what about the merits of the exchange of arguments? Both have equivelent training, and both draw different conclusions. Who makes the more coherent argument? Or is that not something lay persons are entitled to ask?

    —Santi

    • Santi

      Is not as if ID stuff have never been debated, and fully refuted ad nauseaum.
      Yes both have equivalent training, none of them actually work in research on the origin of life, but one of them clearly does represents the scientific consensus on the matter, the other one doesn’t. The one who represents a view that is the minority’s in the scientific community, should present a much more compeling case, backed up on a huge amount of evidence, not in dismissive arrogant rethoric, I think. As well Nagel should have adressed the actual objections on Meyer’s “work”, and not keep whinning on “tone”.
      So in this case as a lay person I relay on the scientific consensus, the same way I do every time I go to my cardiologist. Or should I look for a brainsurgeon, or a lawyer, or even an accountant to take care of my heart? Would you?

  3. Pingback: Here’s My Response to Atheists Who Say That Abiogenesis (the Origin of the First Cell from Nonliving Matter) is Not a Serious Threat to the Coherence of Atheism—or to Strict Naturalism « Prometheus Unbound

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s