Joana Xavier is a rising star in the Origin of Life field. She is a researcher at University College London. She recently authored a paper with Stuart Kauffman on autocatalytic networks which are nature’s version of M.C. Escher’s hand drawing a hand. We discuss the uneasy relationship between professional scientists and Intelligent Design and then go on to discuss conflicts in academia, science funding and publishing.
Joana’s Website: https://jcxavier.org/
Joana’s paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2021.0244
Podcast: https://evo2.org/podcasts/the-biggest-mystery-in-the-history-of-the-universe/
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
That’s a good question! I suppose I would put it where our current understanding suggests that it couldn’t have arisen by natural processes. As you said, the origin of life seems to require design. Irreducible complexity comes to mind as a useful criterion. Really, I’d be content to let those working in the area make those decisions, as long as design is treated as a real possibility instead of being ruled out from the start. I just don’t think the default assumption should be that there must be a naturalistic explanation. It would be great if we could get to the point where researchers from different viewpoints worked together to design tests–if we find result A, that suggests a naturalistic answer, but if we find result B, that suggests design. Or can you imagine students being taught, “Our current understanding suggests that x, y, and z developed through natural processes, but a, b, and c seem to require design.” I would love to see that.
Well you can find it all over the place in the creation / ID literature, and I am sympathetic to that perspective up to a point.
But it gets very dicey as soon as you try to decide where to put that line.
ID has drawn a line at biological information, which I have instantiated in the form of the $10M Evolution 2.0 prize. The prize specification was METICULOUSLY drafted over a period of years to precisely demarcate the dotted line between “laws of physics and chemistry” which are fixed, and “laws of information” (coding tables) which are choices.
I believe this does define a very useful dotted line between “naturalism” and “design”; between reductionism and holism. I elaborate even further in my paper “Biology Transcends the Limits of Computation” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610721000365 and I’ll go so far as to say I’ve drawn this line with more precision than anyone else I’m aware of.
In the prize spec I define it in terms of Shannon Communication. In the above paper I define it in terms of Turing’s halting problem. So it’s a rigorously mathematical treatment of the problem. My dotted line is the distinction between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. So it is very fundamental.
In a simplistic ID framework, everything on the naturalist / reductionist side of the dotted line is what the laws of physics are capable of, and everything on the choices / holism side is indication of design.
By the way I’ve been working on this specific problem for 21 years. I quickly found I could wield a “god of the gaps” argument very skillfully and I backed all kinds of atheists into a corner with it. To their great embarrassment. See for example https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/
But I think this approach is sophomoric (and I realized that pretty quickly once I got into the debate linked above) because I was only winning the debate *based on a certain arbitrary way of defining the problem* which itself was pretentious and immature.
When you get deep into REAL biology as opposed to the pabulum dispensed by Richard Dawkins and friends, you find that ALL living things not only exhibit signatures of design but actively design and redesign themselves. Living things have machine-like structures, but they are NOT like watches or machines or computer programs. They are not deterministic but possess their own creativity and ability to rewrite their programs.
Barbara McClintock made this very clear in the 1940s and the world is now awash with examples. Almost everything Mike Levin works on illustrates this.
So it turns out the problem is FAR deeper. Almost any example of “design” that a creationist might point to can be executed in real time by a bacterium or a cell or a tissue. Every developing embryo on the planet is designing arms and legs and eyes on the fly, not just executing a rote program.
Obviously origin of life brings the issue to a head. But since we really have NO idea how a cell possesses knowledge of itself, we do not even know how to properly frame what the origin of life exactly is, or which parts of the many chicken and egg problems came first.
So I prefer to think of the Divine as an endpoint or north star that invites us to NEVER underestimate the power of nature. There’s not a dotted line separating two sides. Rather, there is an infinite number line with God at one extreme and simple physical laws at the other.
This is in stark contrast to the reductionist crowd, which has criminally underestimated nature, and done so repeatedly. “Junk DNA” being a prime example. I think the people who fought in favor of that theory should be stripped of their credentials and ejected from the academy. Their crime was vandalizing science and slowing its progress.
My book Evolution 2.0 in 1 sentence: “Darwinists underestimate nature, creationists underestimate God.” I believe one has to hold a high view of both God and Nature and accept that there is a very deep mystery here that firmly resists crisp clear dotted lines.
I insist that nobody gets to use God as a “get out of jail free” card, and that’s exactly what many ID and creationists do.
I insist that nobody gets to say “There is no god, nature is blind and purposeless” and that’s exactly what many secular scientists do.
Both views do a huge disservice to science.
The way both sides have handled this has done incalculable damage to the profession. And this has very real consequences. The next time you see a person whose body is withering from cancer, please remember that we could have been 50 years further ahead if we would acknowledge the intrinsic design CAPABILITY of all cells, especially cancer cells, and recognize that those cells are smarter than any scientist or oncologist. We could be communicating and cooperating with those cells rather than trying to nuke them. We could be listening to what they have to say.
That is why I started http://www.reversingcancer.org and http://www.cancerevolution.org.
Hi Perry,
I hope you are well. I continue to be impressed that you are willing to take the time to discuss these matters with someone who is not a famous expert in this area. Thank you for that. I think I’m not seeing your point about creationists and ID advocates using God as a get out of jail free card. It seems to me that many would be perfectly happy with the idea that God designed cells with all kinds of amazing abilities and potential. I just don’t want people to see these amazing qualities and assume that they arose through some as yet unknown natural process. It seems that so many scientists say (or feel that they are required to say), “Look at this amazing thing that shows every indication of being designed–isn’t it remarkable that this arose through purely natural processes.” I would be quite happy if more and more scientists stood up and said that God was involved and we’re going to do our work with that in mind. That’s why I view most ID theorists as allies, even if I disagree with them in various ways. I’m hoping that EV2 theorists will also stand up and say that God was involved at some level, but, except for you, I haven’t seen that yet. However, I am just learning about EV2 so perhaps I will. Again, I appreciate your willingness to talk and I plan to follow the discussion on these topics.
On an unrelated note, might you be willing to have a brief discussion about Christianity? I would be interested to hear about your views and have the chance to share some of mine. If so, please feel free to email me at [email protected]
Best wishes,
Doug
I am a member of ASA (www.asa3.org), the largest professional association of scientists who are Christians, and everyone of them will be happy to say “God created the world,” “God created earth,” “God created life” etc.
But if you draw a line (somewhere) and say “This aspect of life is from a natural process, but this other one is not” how is that useful to science?
Many ID and creationist people are vehemently opposed to the idea that natural processes could create life.
But what else is a scientist supposed to do? Do you really expect a scientist to say “God did it, that settles it” and get that published in a paper?
If you are an eye surgeon and you assume that the structure of an eye is a divine miracle, then you are operating with the notion that there is a perfect way that it is supposed to work, and that is fine, and it is pro science and pro medicine.
However if you are a scientist in the origins field and you say “God made the eye,” I don’t see any escaping the obligation to pinpoint how, where and when, and to draw a line between what God miraculously did and where nature is able to take over.
I would encourage you to spend some more time carefully considering where you would draw the line between the miraculous and the natural.
Sorry I can’t engage in a private discussion about Christianity at the moment, but if you search you will find LOTS of blog posts, videos, interviews and discussions I’ve done about Christian theology etc etc.
PS- In my mind this is not only about what’s good for science. There’s a spiritual element as well. I would like our culture to see that science and faith are not at odds; rather, science supports faith. Will EV2 scientists support this or continue to support naturalism?
Many “EV2 scientists” aka “third way” or “agential evolution” “cognitive evolution” scientists have some sort of spiritual bent. Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, “New Age”. Their metaphysical views absolutely do influence their scientific practices and hypotheses. A few are atheists.
None of the ones I work closely with are using the divine as a “get out of jail free card” – they don’t regard biological features as God-programmed “zap” miracles. Rather I would loosely characterize them as extremely resistant to ideas like “junk DNA” “vestigial organs” “degenerate code” “pseudogenes” “evolutionary leftovers”.
Because whereas materialistic scientists are prone to say “If we don’t know what it does, it probably does nothing.”
Or worse:
“If it doesn’t fit the current model, it must be waste, noise, or accident.”
(Which violates Information theory, Engineering design logic, systems resilience principles, and frankly, intellectual humility)
….they try as hard as possible to NOT underestimate nature. They expect that behind every mystery is an answer, and behind every answer is 3 more mysteries, so the dance of mysteries and answers may run infinitely deep. Science might literally be bottomless.
Again I’m painting with a very broad brush, but quite a few appear to think of consciousness as being a portal to the divine, and there may be no hard limits on the innate creativity of organisms; and that cognition, consciousness, purpose, and biological creativity is a kind of transcendent gift. I certainly see it that way.
Most of these people do not see science and faith as being at odds with each other. Most are fairly quiet publicly about their metaphysical views, but those views do come up when we’re at the pub.
I would say add if you get to know most of these people well, you find that like most people, many have had undeniable “metaphysical experiences” which quietly inform their scientific views. Those experiences could be almost anything – divine encounters with nature, meditation practices, personal revelations, psychic phenomena, worship experiences, near death and out-of-body experiences, psychedelic trips, spiritual retreats, miraculous healings. Again I say “like most people” because when people have the opportunity to be honest and vulnerable and are not afraid of being judged, a great many have remarkable experiences that cannot be explained in a purely material frame.
In science, where freedom of speech does not exist, one must be circumspect about discussing such things.
It puzzles me that Christians and ID people have been slow to pick up on this. I do not frequently get invited to speak to Christian audiences.
Finally I think EV2 scientists are much more cautious than the average scientists of intellectual hubris and are more aware of the hidden presumptions that all of us bring to the table.
This talk by Michael Levin at Denis Noble’s Oxford Evolution conference 2 weeks ago is a stellar example of harnessing the very best of material viewpoints AND metaphysical perspectives in a synergistic way to drive science forward:
https://thoughtforms.life/a-talk-on-evolution-from-the-perspective-of-diverse-intelligence-implemented-in-morphogenesis/
Hi Perry,
I hope you’re well. Sorry for the long delay. I got involved in other stuff (like my day job) and forgot to respond. I will definitely continue to think about these matters. I still would like EV2 theorists to explicitly give God credit but I understand your point about why they might not. I suppose I’ll just have to watch and see. I agree that EV2 is good for science compared to NeoDarwinism. But I hope it doesn’t become another naturalistic theory that just fits the evidence better.
I saw that you’re not up for a discussion of Christianity at this time, but please let me know if that changes. My impression is that many churches (and people) teach things that do not fit with what the Bible says (e.g., salvation, worship, church government), so I find that really troubling.
Best wishes and thanks again for talking.
Doug
Your article on biology and computation was really interesting. I don’t see why Divine intervention shouldn’t be considered the best explanation. It suggests that cognition (God) precedes code (biological living things), doesn’t it? I liked your online debate with Atheists too.
If you don’t see why Divine intervention shouldn’t be considered the best explanation, then you are not understanding this conversation (or even the definition of the job of a scientist). Cognition is not necessarily equal to God. Please carefully re-read what I’ve already written.
It might sound like I’m being harsh. But a scientist has a JOB to do. When you have a paying job as a scientist, you can’t write “God did it, that explains it, let’s go out to lunch” and publish it in a scientific paper.
The Intelligent Design people for the most part have had a very very hard time understanding this. They don’t understand the difference between philosophy (which I agree with up to a point) and bench scientific work.
The origin of life on Earth reflects a transition from non-living chemical reactions to self-sustaining and evolving systems operating far beyond thermodynamic equilibrium. Life likely arose in water-rich microenvironments composed of clay minerals and organic-rich sediments such as organic sludge. The clay structure concentrated organic matter and catalyzed polymerization, while humus-like materials provided reducing carbon and supported redox reactions. Environmental energy flows—including lightning, geothermal gradients, and molecular hydrogen—driven the chemical networks within these viscous matrices. It is possible that naturally occurring deuterium acted as an isotopic constraint, slowing down some reactions and favoring fast, stable, proton-enhanced pathways. In this context, RNA polymers initially formed on the surfaces of metals, and under the influence of a life-giving guiding principle (spirit), gradually acquired catalytic and regulatory functions, shifting control from external metals to internally coded and information-driven pathways.
The origin of life primarily depends of a series of waves that create systems separate from their environments, based on an increased negentropy which creates molecular metabolism etc. This means that the origin of life goes back already to the Big Bang, because the purpose of this universe is to create life. The idea that life would accidentally arise because of some chemical reactions at some later point in time simply lacks credibility.
I agree with you that a scientist can’t just write “God did it” and stop there. But what I don’t see is why saying “God did it” should stop a scientist from continuing work with that in mind. In fact, my understanding is that the ID folks say that the inference of design yields new hypotheses to explore (and they should explore them to help make the case that ID is a fruitful scientific framework).
If I understood correctly, you might not make the same argument today that you did on the Infidels site, but I still think you were right on in saying that the only reasonable conclusion is that information comes from a mind.
Saying that Origin of Life is caused by Divine Intervention can give you hypotheses about what life does now, but it doesn’t give you a scientific hypothesis about where it came from originally. It eliminates any structural or process theory by default.
Design writ large does give all kinds of hypotheses to explore, and MANY people in the Third Way movement are doing outstanding cutting edge biology because of that.
ID is a fruitful framework when used in the way that Third Way people use it. It’s not a fruitful framework when it’s a God of Gaps argument, which is what the vast majority of people perceive it to be.
Yes information does come from mind and while I’ve backed away from my God of Gaps argument I made on Infidels, all of the other pieces are in place and the prize exists to advance science and to promote honest conversations.
It seems to me that arguing that code comes from a mind isn’t a God of the gaps argument because the argument that codes only come from minds comes from what we know, not what we don’t know, but I suppose the argument is the same regardless of how one chooses to label it. I agree that, of course, if we conclude that God created at level X, that rules out any naturalistic argument about where level X came from. Personally, I’m ok with that, but I’ll be watching with interest to see what the third way folks have to say about how design came to be. I’m also hypothesizing that the Darwinists will eventually accept EV2 and say that it’s just a small change about the mechanism of evolution, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
I suggest we answer a more basic question about God before we approach the question of how life got here. To which the biggest problem for the Biblical case has been the size of the universe and the speed of light. So I offer the following solution which has been reviewed by purely secular scientists for the past few years at least with no contrary argument..
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebravoyanky/p/retrospective-age-model-of-the-universe?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web