Professor Franklin Harold of Colorado State University, described as “one of the world’s most respected microbiologists” has included some fascinating observations in his book The Way of the Cell on the subject of abiogenesis. The mini-reviews on his book’s back cover lend some credibility to the claim about Dr. Harold’s professional credentials, one being written by renowned biologist Lynn Margulis, who said, “Witty and erudite, this scientific book hails as a literary achievement.Comprehensive and up to date, Franklin Harold traces the roots–historical, thermodynamic, and biochemical–of today’s biological revolution.”
His chapter titled “Searching for the beginning” is so remarkable, it seems prudent to start at the beginning. Dr. Franklin writes, “Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life. This opinion is bound to strike many readers as overblown, to put it mildly. Should we not rank the Big Bang, life in the cosmos, and the nature of consciousness on at least an equal plane? My reason for placing the origin of life at the top of the agenda is that resolution of this question is required in order to anchor living organisms securely in the real world of matter and energy, and thus relieve the lingering anxiety as to whether we have read nature’s book correctly. Creation myths lie at the heart of all human cultures, and science is no exception; until we know where we come from, we do not know who we are. The origin of life is a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight. There is indeed a large and growing literature of books and articles devoted to this subject, many with theories to propound. Biology textbooks often include a chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with the impression that the answer is almost within our grasp. My own reading is considerably more reserved. I suspect that the upbeat tone owes less to the advance of science than to the resurgence of primitive religiosity all around the globe, and particularly in the West. Scientists feel vulnerable to the onslaught of believer’s certitudes, and so we proclaim our own. In reality, we may not be much closer to understanding genesis than A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane were in the 1930s, and in the long run, science would be better if we said so. After all, the unique claim of science is not that it has all the answers but that it knows the questions, and will not compromise its commitment to the rational search for truth.” [emphasis added]
To answer the question posed by Dr. Harold, yes, we should consider the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness as having equal importance in understanding how and why we exist. Harold is claiming that scientists have been much too optimistic and deliberately overstated the evidence supporting their claims to combat the effect of religion in the West. Perhaps this is because too many scientists see their role today as opposing religion rather than supporting science by accurately reporting on the results of their research.
Science is supposed to be a noble search for truth. Unfortunately, humans are involved in this search for truth, and human beings are corruptible and corrupt. Honesty may be the best policy, but it really should be the only policy. When scientists allow personal bias, politics, or anything other than the results of their experiment to dictate what is publicly communicated, they aren’t doing science any favors, and they aren’t seeking truth any longer.
They are offering their opinions, and calling it science.
Speak Your Mind