Harvard and the Origins of Life

The Coffee Shop
1

August 15, 2005 Harvard to Investigate Origins of Life By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 9:43 p.m. ET

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) – Harvard University is joining the long-running debate over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how life began.

The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that some mysteries about life’s origins cannot be explained.

‘‘My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention,’’ said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.

The ‘‘Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative’’ is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.

Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years. It has been standard in most public school science texts for decades but recently re-emerged in the spotlight as communities and some states debated whether school children should also be taught about creationism or intelligent design.

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the university’s vast resources could change that perception.

‘‘It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a problem that will be remembered 100 years from now,’’ said Steven Benner, a University of Florida scientist who is one of the world’s top chemists in origins-of-life research.

2

Everyone at Harvard knows all intelligent life originated in Widener Library.

3

What is the point of the funding since they already have the conclusion?

‘‘My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention,’’ said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.

4

Wouldn’t it be a hypothesis?

5

Read their conclusion. They already stated that they intend to find. Why spend $1mill to come to something they’ve already made their mind up on…

6

That is not phrased like a hypothesis. It is phrased like a conclusion, a hoped for conclusion at that.

7

I can see how one would say that, but here is a site I found on the Scientific Method (from the Discovery Channel, and I’m not aware of them being a bad source, so I am trusting them here):

http://school.discovery.com/sciencefaircentral/scifairstudio/handbook/scientificmethod.html

Their definition is:

“A hypothesis is an idea about the solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research.”

Now clearly he’s hitting the first half on the head. I’ll admit the second half is debatable, however there has been a good bit of research and we know a decent bit about this.

From there, this is an example of a hypothesis:

“I believe that bread mold does not need light for reproduction on white bread.”

To me (which doesn’t mean I’m write) that sounds relatively similar to:

“My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

If he had said “This study will show . . .” then yes, this is a foregone conclusion assuming that he has no scientific ethics and would twist the result to show what he wants.

Either which way you view the one professor’s statement, this is a really good thing, this research project. Harvard is not considered one of the leaders in this field, but they are very well known to the lay person, it will spur more interest, and will hopefully produce something moderately tangible.

8

“My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

Now, what does “logical” mean in this experiment? And how much evidence is necessary to fulfill the “could have taken place” part?

I’m asking, because it would not be that hard to put the substances together like a Lego structure or any sequential pattern of assembling based on characteristics … just as scientists do/did with the Bombadier beetle scenario. But, that’s not quite the same thing as having adequate evidence that shows that it probably did happen this way. Not too hard to come up with “possible” scenarioes … much more difficult coming up with “reasonable” and even “probable” scenarios.

If I have a guess … I suggest that Harvard is going to put it together piece by piece, not so much based on loads of evidence, but rather how it “could” be put together, and then boast that they have discovered something grand.

Having said that, I find it reasonable that we will one day have a decent idea of how life did originate (or could have) and there may be good evidence (maybe even reproducable steps in the process) for the conclusion … but this probably isn’t it (although I admit, it could be).

The one thing I know for certain is that the same folks that are always involved in the issue are going to exagerrate the importance/relevance of what is found or isn’t found.

It will be very interesting.

have taken place with no divine intervention."

How can you prove “with no divine intervention”? Are you certain that the divine is not controlling each step? Would setting up natural and physical laws count as divine intervention?

FWIW, I don’t see how ANY hypothersis can have the words “divine intervention” in them and still be a testable hypothesis. You can’t test for or against the divine, let alone it’s intervention. If the divine did intervene, how would we know it?

Example: I get my kids in the car, and I get ready to start the car. I left my keys inside. I grumble and go get my keys. Did I just lose my keys or did the divine cause me to forget them because I was on the path to get killed in a car wreck (just a silly example to mkae a point). How could I ever prove it one way or another? How could I ever prove that the divine caused me to forget my keys? or that I simply forgot them?

9

How can you prove “with no divine intervention”?

Obviously you can’t. I would wager he meant without any miraculous/supernaural intervention than contradicts the laws of nature.

10

I unknowingly saved myself by picking a definition of hypothesis that didn’t incorporate “testable” in the meaning, whew! That’s good dumb luck.

I leave it to fellow scientists to determine if his was a hypothesis, and if his one statement will be the driving force of the research. However, I think given the highly visible nature of the project that they will do their best to perform valid and meaningful research.

I’m a scientific glass is half full kind of a guy though.

11

**than contradicts the laws of nature. **

He should have said that (said in my rare “stern” teacher voice). I’m taking off 3 points. =)

I unknowingly saved myself by picking a definition of hypothesis that didn’t incorporate “testable” in the meaning, whew! That’s good dumb luck.

The only thing is hypotheses have to be tested … it’s what they do. Without being tested, they serve no (meaningful) scientific purpose.

12

He stated that he believes they will be able to demonstrate a series of steps that may have led to the origin of life, without divine intervention. I’m sure he would never say it is the origin of life. One outcome of such a finding is to refute the ID claim that life is so complicated as to have only originated by design.

13

One outcome of such a finding is to refute the ID claim that life is so complicated as to have only originated by design.

I would not, at all, be surprised if they come up with a very possible way that life “could have” originated within the boundaries of the natural laws, and in conjunction with known natural processes and properties.

Honestly, whether they come up with something that IS actually the way it happened (not that they would know for certain), or just a way that it “might have” happened, it is very impressive to see mankind using the knowledge it has gained to attempt to answer some very challenging questions.

One outcome of such a finding is to refute the ID claim that life is so complicated as to have only originated by design.

That claim is one the way out the back door. JUst as with bombadier, blood-clotting, human eye, etc … scientists have shown some possible ways that those systems could develop. Turns out different organisms have all osrts of intermediary forms of eyes, blood-clotting systems, etc.

ID, and the like, just make it easy for those that wish to refute the idea of a Creator. Every “scenario of the gaps” the ID’ers set up as a “Ah-a, what about this?” just gets knocked down with increasing knowledge and technology.

I have no problem with a God that works through mankind and natural processes. I don’t require God the Magician in order to have Faith. I’m not sure why so many people want God to be overwhelming and obvious, except that it makes faith easier. I don’t know that faith is suppossed to be easy.

Sorry for ramblin’ on Ken … you know how I am. One thing that is sparking my curiosity is to note, regarding this situation (origins) how many scientists are actually able (more like willing) to keep their science and their philosophy seperate. My guess is “not very many”, no matter what side of the fence they are on.

This is an exciting event in science, for certain.

14

I have no problem with a God that works through mankind and natural processes. I don’t require God the Magician in order to have Faith. I’m not sure why so many people want God to be overwhelming and obvious, except that it makes faith easier. I don’t know that faith is suppossed to be easy.

Sorry for ramblin’ on Ken … you know how I am. One thing that is sparking my curiosity is to note, regarding this situation (origins) how many scientists are actually able (more like willing) to keep their science and their philosophy seperate. My guess is “not very many”, no matter what side of the fence they are on.

This is an exciting event in science, for certain.
Believe it or not, I have no problem with your attitude (not that that matters!). Reading about people like Dr. Miller, who is a Catholic and knows that evolution is a fact makes me accept that people can be scientists and still believe in God. Good for them. As has been pointed out many times on this forum, one can never prove or disprove the existence of God. Make your peace with your own decision.