OM 9: Higher Dimensional Science

James D. Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, recently said of the mystery of life, "It is very complex, but it can be explained by the laws of chemistry, by random thermal motion. It's complicated; there are many variables, but there's no doubt it's that."1

He recalled that this conviction had strongly motivated both himself and Francis Crick during their pioneering research into the structure of DNA. "We wouldn't have been doing it if we hadn't believed that chemistry would explain it. Up to then people felt that chemistry wasn't ever going to be enough, that you needed religion to explain life. But even when I was in college I was influenced by Linus Pauling's insistence that you can explain life on the basis of chemistry."2

His attitude toward religion is further illuminated in the following statement: "When I wrote the first edition of my text [The Molecular Biology of the Gene], I thought, I am rewriting the Bible-actually going back and finding out what's up [our italics]."3

All in all, Watson's statements represent the general drift of scientific thought over the past several centuries-faith in explaining complex phenomena (such as life, the origin of species, the origin and structure of the universe, etc.) by simple, mathematically expressed natural laws. Some scientists and religionists have attempted to preserve some last role for God as the guarantor of the laws of physics, but this gives the laws of physics a status superior to that of God in the universe. With this compromise the substance of the original concept of the omnipotent God is completely eliminated, and one is left with a meaningless empty shell. Religions that have accepted this compromise should reevaluate their position.

For his part, Watson maintains an unshakable faith that physical explanation is always possible. "On the level of DNA it [the physical explanation of life] goes very well. On a more complicated level, we're still trying to figure it out. Embryology is much harder. And in neurobiology there are very few insights. But some [scientists] will have a moment when the light will come on … The problem of explaining consciousness in biological terms is a tougher one, but I'm sure it will fall out."4

Here the major shortcoming of modern science is brought into clear focus. Watson admits that fundamental aspects of living organisms have not been completely explained by physical laws; yet he insists that they can be and will be so explained, ruling out in advance any nonmaterial, nonmechanistic explanation.

But is this really true? Could it be that Watson's faith is ill-founded? All available evidence points clearly to the possibility that the complex forms of living organisms may never be explained by simple physical laws. One could perhaps say that Shakespeare's plays can be explained by the 26 letters of the alphabet, but there is certainly more involved than that. In the same way, scientists may say that life can be explained by a genetic code embedded in certain molecules, but as of yet this approach has failed to account for the complexity of even the simplest life forms. Just as no one has found any simple set of laws that could allow a computer to transform the 26 letters of the alphabet into a Hamlet or Macbeth, so no scientist has shown how any set of simple natural laws could transform a few basic molecular building blocks of life into a single self-reproducing cell.

So perhaps just as the fundamental laws of physics cannot be reduced any further, the material complexity we observe in living organisms cannot be reduced any further. A few freethinking scientists with the courage to challenge current preconceptions have taken this bold step. Reviewing the conclusions of his own investigations, prominent biologist Walter M. Elsasser states that the complex biochemical forms of living organisms are "of a primary and irreducible type of natural order, on the same level as the more conventional laws of nature."5