Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,
Last month this newsletter went into detail about Theosophy's views
on Darwinism. This month I will be covering details of one aspect
of the Darwinian theory. But before doing that I would like to
discuss the importance of this issue.
Our underlying view of metaphysics is much more important to us than
we might at first think. Our metaphysical view shapes our assumptions
and our assumptions shape our opinions and our values. These shape
our thoughts, our actions, and how we live.
In the case of Darwinism we can consider this dependence more
specifically. Suppose we have the view that Darwinism is the cause
of the origin of species. This might seem just a detail but it is
not. This view gives us a basis for a materialistic outlook on life.
Understandably we will reach different views on the variety of
sanctity of life issues for example. Suppose instead we recognize
the failings of the Darwinian hypothesis. I mean the utter failings.
Then we must at least leave room in our underlying values for a more
spiritual view. That orientation is likely to give us a sense of a
purpose in life, a connection to the universe. It should in turn
lead us to view all sentient life around us in a more respectful way.
If we look at the world around us, the people and groups of ideas
that swirl in contention, we see a most remarkable clustering of
ideas. Theosophy is of course on the spiritual end and not the
materialistic end of this polarity. Yet it is the materialistic
version that is taught to our high school students and imposed upon
our civilization in a wide variety of ways. The consequences are
profound, pervasive and major.
As Theosophists we must care about these things. For my own part,
the more I study this issue the more amazed I am at what I find.
When we look to the details on this issue - yes at the beaker and
test tube level - the facts are overwhelmingly against materialism -
and, as it happens, supportive of Theosophy. So, because of their
great importance, I will try to share some of these details.
I remember as a young man discovering the results of the Miller-Urey
experiments of the 1950's. As you may recall, they claimed that the
rudiments of life had been formed automatically by nature in the
bottom of a test tube by merely shooting electical sparks into a
closed beaker of gases that were thought to simulate the early
atmosphere of the earth. Imagine that! The origin of life
explained! At least as a start. Probably it would not be much
longer and science would fill in the rest of the details. Or at
least so it seemed at that time.
Nor was I the only person persuaded. Carl Sagan crowed for many:
"The Miller-Urey experiment is now recognized as the single most
significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely
to be abundant in the cosmos. (Quoted in Origins: A Skeptic's
Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. R. Shapiro)
Of course many others felt the same.
"The Miller-Urey experiment assures us of what we had suspected for
a long time: that one can bridge the gap between the inanimate and
the animate and that the appearance of life is essentially an
automatic biochemical development that comes along naturally when
physical conditions are right." (Astronomer Harlow Shapley, to a
televison audience, as quoted in Evolution after Darwin, S. Tax,
Today this experiment is presented prominently in our schools and
our culture. It is no doubt still persuading many every day.
Yet we are not hearing what the scientists themselves are saying
who are involed in this line of "origin of life" research. Today
those scientists recognize that the Miller-Urey experient is fatally
flawed. Other experiments have also been tried. They also
have failed to provide the desired answers. It is said that
today's researchers in the field are in a "paradigm crisis". They do
not even have a reasonable model around which they can form some
kind of consensus.
So, because of the critically important philosophical implications,
because of the centrality of this particular experiment (and the
decades of more elaborate experiments that were inspired by it),
and because of the utter illusion of its success - I will try to
go into detail.
I am getting most of this material from the book "Of Pandas and
People". That book has often been praised highly by intelligent
design supporters and for good reason. It is very well checked,
double checked, confirmed for accuracy and tested in the classroom.
It is very persuasive and I recommend it highly. It requires
careful attention to read but it is still quite accessable if you
take it slowly. (Available at:
Because the book is so controversial in the view of its opponents
I would like to quote for you its opening page:
Of Pandas and People went through an evolution of its own. The
book's Project Chairman and Academic Editor, Dr. Charles B.
Thaxton supervised the review and revision process through many
drafts. Over an extended period of time, the manuscipt, either
in part or in its entirety, was sent to scores of reviewers with
very diverse perspectives. In addition, the book was used during
its development for two years in a public school district in
field test form, and feedback was taken into account in further
revision. Although the manuscript was nearly always under
review by someone, there was a general cadence to these reviews,
which came in three basic rounds. First came a round by
scientists engaged in teaching and research, then a second round
by scientists. Many hundreds of valuable criticisms and
suggestions were offeed, from readers holding evolutionary views
as well as others in general agreement with the authors. Upon
publication of the first edition, additional valuable comments
became available from a wider scientifically informed readership.
Our genuine thanks to the following ..."
There follows a list of 42 individuals with very impressive academic
I think anyone giving this book a serious reading will come away
thoroughly disallusioned with Dawinism. But now on to the details.
In the 20th century our knowledge of the chemistry of life became
much much more advanced than in Darwin's day. In 1924 the Russian
biochemist A. I. Oparin proposed a way in which chemicals might
possibly - unaided by outside itelligence - form the first rudiments
Next a nobel prize winner in chemistry enters the picture. Professor
Harold Urey (who won the prize in 1934) had a laboratory at the
University of Chicago and was interested in these origin of life
questions. In 1952 his undergraduate student, Stanley Miller, began
the now famous experiments that attempted to experimentally verify
the proposals of Oparin.
In describing the detailed 7 assumptions I will be following Of
Pandas and People pages 41-58.
1. Assumption: "There was little or no oxygen in the earth's early
Miller filled his closed test tube apparatus with the gases methane,
ammonia, hdrogen and water vapor - and no oxygen. This may seem
only a detail but it is of major importance. Today the earth's
atmosphere has 21% oxygen. If the early atmosphere had only 1%
oxygen the process that occurred in Miller's test tubes would not
have occurred in nature.
Think of rust. Oxygen combines with minerals to turn them into
something else. Oxygen stops these processes of Miller. While
there has been considerable debate on the oxygen content of the
earth in those early days, the consensus, including authoritative
opinions, now holds that the early atmosphere contained so much
oxygen that Miller's early assumptions are invalid. (However, you
don't get told this if you are being "taught" by our schools today.
You get misled instead.)
A minor point. Miller ran 50,000 volts of spark into his test
tubes. Any oxygen present would have caused an explosion. Happily
for his laboratory, Miller had carefully extracted all the oxygen
from his test tubes before the simulated lightening was turned on.
2. Assumption: "The simple organic compounds formed in the soup were
somehow preserved, so that the energy that caused them to form
did not also destroy them."
It is necessary to put energy into the system to make the life
compounds form. In the real world that energy might have been
supplied by lightning bolts, ultraviolet light from the sun, cosmic
rays, heat (perhaps from volcanoes) and even radioactivity. But
here is the problem. That same energy that makes the compounds form
also makes them disassemble.
Miller solved this problem. He removed the compounds from the
bottom of the apparatus after they formed. But in the real world ...
for situations requiring much time for the proper probabilities ...?
Was he introducing "intelligence" - an act of God - into the
"We can see that Miller's experimental design was faulty, The trap
[to collect and remove the good stuff] used in his apparatus did not
realistically correspond with any reasonable protective mechanism
presumed to have existed on the early earth."
3. Assumption: "Enough biological compounds were reserved for
combination with the "right" molecules (rather than being tied up
by reacting with useless moleculs) to form the large molecules
useful to life."
Explanation: It would be useful to save up the "good stuff" so it
could be combined as needed later. But that doesn't happen. The
good combines with the bad and the ugly and is not available in
usable form when needed for later stages.
4. Assumption: "Uniform Orientation. Only "left-handed" or L-amino
acids combine to produce the proteins of life, and only the
"right-handed" or D-sugars reacted to produce polysaccarides, or
This issue is clearer when you appreciate the 3-dimensional
appearance of the molecule. The amino acids formed in Miller's
experiment were 50% of the right kind (left handed) and 50% of the
wrong kind (right handed). This is not what is needed for
life. No one knows why but life demands exclusive handed-ness
for various compounds. That is not what Miller's experiments
5. Assumption: "Simultaneous Origins. The genetic machinery that
tells the cell how to produce protein and the protein required to
build that genetic machinery both orignated gradualy and were
present and functioning in the first reproducing protocells."
Background: Amino acids join together to form proteins. DNA is
made of protein. But there is a very tight circle here. DNA is
used to construct new proteins. (Through RNA, DNA contains the
necessary information on how to make the very complicated
proteins. But DNA is made of proteins! Which came first the
chicken or the egg, that is, which came first, the DNA or the
protein. This is a very striking problem. It is worse the more
it is studied. For details see Of Pandas and People.
6. Specified Complexity. "The highly organized arrangement of
thousands of parts in the chemical machinery needed to accomplish
specialized functions orginated gradually in coacervates or other
The problem here is that one can mathematically calculate the
degree of improbability of these molecules being in the right
place at the right time. As a result you find statements like
"This number is so enormous that there has not been enough time
during the conventionally acepted age of the universe (15 billion
years) to try every combination in an attempt to find the
specific combination of one protein!" When one notes that much
more than only one protein is needed then this assumption of
Oparin is astronomically improbable.
7. Assumption: "Photosynthesis. A chemical system called
photosynthesis, the process of capturing, storing, and using the
energy of sunlight to make food, gradually developed within
You see, these lucky early objects that will reproduce - need food.
There was no food chain then. There was not photosynthesis where
the food chain begins. Relative to photosynthesis: "There is no
experimental evidence to support the view that such a complex
process developed by presently known natural means. In fact,
the step-by-step formation of such a complex energy-processing
system is highly improbable, even over billions of years."
Indeed these are many scientific details that go beyond our
everyday experience. If you read Of Pandas and People it will
help greatly. Read it slowly and thoughtfully.
For a summary of the origin of life experiments I turn to Klaus
Dose, a prominent evolutionist who wrote as follows in 1988:
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in
the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a
better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin
of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all
discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field
either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.” Klaus
Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,”
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.
Perhaps even more telling is the response of Cricks, the
co-discoverer of DNA. He understood well the problems involved.
His solution to these perplexing problems - life arrived on earth
as bacteria from elsewhere in the universe. It shows his level
of desparation to resolve the problems that seemed so insolvable.
But of course, the question is not how did life arrive on earth
but how did life arrive anywhere.
After all this science we might enjoy a little poetry - actually,
in this case, a little scripture:
The heavens tell of the glory of God.
The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship.
Day after day they continue to speak;
night after night they make him known.
They speak without a sound or a word;
their voice is silent in the skies;
yet their message has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to all the world.
My own conclusion: This doesn't make sense. The origin of life
experiments utterly fail in the laboratory to answer questions
on the formation of life. Darwinism has been tested in the
laboratory and failed. What is taught to our children is nonsense.
To merely let our children see a glimmer of the scientific issues
is almost instantly characterized as religious fanaticism.
Lawsuits are instigated and the constitution of the US invoked
- all to block this informaton. And why? Because - detailed as
these scientific facts are - they have enormous implications.
Those implications argue against the materialitic view of life.
They favor a spiritual, respectful view of nature, of ourselves,
potentially of our purpose, and our place in the universe.
Our world views are in collision and the struggle is around us.
"No Religion Higher Than Truth"
Support this site by visiting our donation page.
Site copyright © 1996-2014 by Estela Carson-Priede