© 2005 Merlyn Cox
© 2005 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
| A Careful Examination of the “Not Inspired” Disclaimers of The Urantia Book (Part I) | Spring 2005 — Index | On the Supreme: An Essay |
Note on title [1]
A review of this book published in Amazon.com states: “This amazing book may be the most important book written in the last 1,000 years.” “If Joseph’s theory is correct, then he is the greatest thinker of all time — which also makes him the most dangerous man of all time, as least from the perspective of the scientific establishment.” 3 If all this seems an exaggeration to draw our attention, it is at the very least an extraordinary book, with extraordinary implications. If half the claims the book makes are in fact borne out by research, it will surely be seen as a watershed in the history of science, especially that of evolutionary theory.
Rhawn Joseph may not be a household word, but he is a writer and researcher with a long pedigree of accomplishments. He has done extensive research in neuroscience and written a widely used textbook in the area. During the 1970’s he challenged the prevailing notion that the brain was just a “black box” that had nothing to do with cognition. His theory of the sexual differentiation of the brain, a radical and much maligned theory at the time, is now accepted as mainstream. It also helped lead to understanding the differentiation of functions of the “left brain vs. right brain.” His research on the “neuroplasticity” led to a new understanding of the profound effects of the environment on learning, memory, and perception.
If half the claims the book makes are in fact borne out by research, it will surely be seen as awatershed in the history of science, especially that of evolutionary theory.
Joseph’s research also led him increasingly into the area of genetics. He became convinced that the environment acts on gene selection, and that the transfer of acquired and precoded traits is a factor of evolution, thus calling into question the Darwinian or neo-Darwinist’s theory that random mutation accounts for the development of diverse life forms in all its variety, and thus, “the origin of species.”
Further research led him to develop the theory of “evolutionary Metamophosis.” Among the basic tenets of this theory is: “only DNA begets DNA,” and “only DNA begets life.” He considers the idea that DNA arose spontaneously in an organic soup absurd. “A single macromolecule of DNA is so incredibly complex, the notion that it was randomly assembled in an organic soup is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Jupiter and then arguing that it was spewed out of the Methane sea.” (p. 19)
The genetic instructions for all life, he believes, were present in these earliest life forms. He became increasingly convinced that evolution has “unfolded in accordance with specific DNA-based instruction which had been inherited from the first creatures to appear on this planet…” (p. 8) “The genetic instructions and the genetic material for creation of the human genome existed apriori.” (p. 18) DNA containing the instructions for life were thus present in the earliest life forms on earth, such as bacteria, and must have come from a source much older than the earth.
He became increasingly convinced that evolution has “unfolded in accordance with specific DNA-based instruction which had been inherited from the first creatures to appear on this planet…” (p. 8) “The genetic instructions and the genetic material for creation of the human genome existed apriori.” (p.18) DNA containing the instructions for life were thus present in the earliest life forms on earth, such as bacteria, and must have come from a source much older than the earth.
A related basic tenet is that built into this DNA are the instructions to interact with, and engineer, the larger environment of the organism. Responding to the environment, previously “silent” genes (introns), switch on and produce the needed sequence of transforming events that lead from a hostile and sterile environment, such as existed on our early planet, to one that is life nurturing, with an oxygen rich atmosphere. When its task is done, these genes switch off, and other genes (including genes within genes) then trigger the next stage of necessary development, which in turn give expression to the step wise unfolding of increasingly complex life forms, ultimately leading to human life.
“Contrary to Darwinism…the evidence now clearly indicates, the evolution of life has been genetically predetermined and precoded, has unfolded in accordance with specific genetic plans and DNA-based instruction, and has been striving (and still striving) toward fulfilling specific genetic goals: the dispersal and activation of silent DNA and the replication of life forms that long ago lived on other worlds.” (p. 19)
“Life has not evolved randomly, but in a step-wise, progressive, highly predictable, molecular-clock like fashion.” (p. 6) “There is nothing randomly variable about DNAor its expression or variability, except, perhaps in the regard to those ”mutations“ that result in disease and death.” (p. 153) “Mutation is always a pathological process.” (p. 301)
Quoting research from the Human Genome Project: “…the many processes in genome evolution have shown that de novo generation of building blocks — single genes or gene segments coding for protein domains — seems to be rare,” (p 154) “‘…highly expressed genes’ and clusters of interacting genes, ‘cannot be explained by random variation.”’ (p. 154) In other words, new genes are not produced randomly or by chance, they are under precise regulatory control.
“Life has not evolved randomly, but in a step-wise, progressive, highly predictable, molecular-clock like fashion.” (p. 6) “There is nothing randomly variable about DNA or its expression or variability, except, perhaps in the regard to those “mutations” that result in diseaseand death.” (p.153) “Mutation isalways a pathological process.” (p.301)
Such research prompted Gene Myers, chief computer scientist at the headquarters of the Celera Genomics (the company that competed with the government coalition to sequence the entire human genome) to state that the architecture of DNA is so incredibly complex, “It’s like it was designed.” When a reporter asked him if he was implying a designer, an intelligence, something more than the fortuitous bumping together of chemical in the primordial slime, Myers replied, “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.” (p. 18, originally in “Science and Nature,” Feb., 2001.)
If the ability of DNA to engineer the environment and the unfolding of life and various species in a precoded and a carefully regulated process seems difficult enough to believe, there’s a related and equally amazing conclusion that researchers are drawing. It relates to the role of DNA in producing lymphocytes (antibodies, or killer cells, as part of the immune system’s response to foreign bodies): “As originally proposed by Macfarlane Burnet, and which has since been confirmed; the genetic instruction for producing every possible lymphocyte exists apriori; that is without prior exposure to the antigens which require their production. They exist prior to the diseases which make them necessary.” (p. 301)
In other words, the organism does not wait until exposure to pathogens are matched by random mutations which give them a beneficial advantage, namely survival. Rather, the antigens to every possible disease the organism will ever face, at least in the natural world, is already preprogrammed into the DNA. (I’ve stated natural world, because how this applies to synthetic chemicals produced by modern societies is not addressed.)
If this isn’t controversial enough, early on in his book he seeks to illustrate his other than earthly origins for life theory by appearing to adopt the equally controversial writings of Zacharia Sitchen. Sitchen goes beyond the bounds of the pioneering work of Samuel Noah Kramer in translating and interpreting ancient Sumerian texts, and has collected and collated a massive amount of data from ancient tablets, tablets The Urantia Book says have long been resting on the dusty shelves of many museums. Those familiar with Sitchen’s work will recognize the parallels, at times remarkable, between the stories that emerge from these texts and the history of the emergence of civilization given in The Urantia Book. Of course, there is an enormous amount of material in his works not mentioned in The Urantia Book, and it often differs in significant ways. While Sitchen allows some room for interpretation, he appears to treat these stories as literal history that have been handed down largely intact over the millennia without being corrupted and shaped by the pre-scientific, myth building tendencies of early peoples. Nevertheless, an increasing number of people, like Joseph, who see the possibility or necessity of the source of life coming from outside our own planet, accept his writings as having a historical foundation.
However, using the work of Sitchen can hardly add to the appeal of his basic thesis for mainstream scientists, although it’s something he doesn’t seem to mind. He considers many basic theories of mainline science, such as Darwinism and the “Big Bang,” as “junk science” anyway.
Neither Joseph nor Sitchen, however, are the first to promote the thesis that life on earth was seeded from beyond. The idea of “panspermia” was introduced by the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, over 100 years ago. Over the last 30 years or so, well known astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have championed the view that life bearing comets brought living cells to the earth some 3.8 billion years ago, and bacteria, larger cells, and viruses have continued to bombard the earth ever since. [2]
Interesting, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule, also came to a similar conclusion: namely, that life was so miraculous, so improbable, and so incredibly complex, that it likely came from beyond this world in a process of “directed panspermia.”
By the time one finishes reading the presentation and synthesis of study after study supporting his (at first) seemingly unlikely thesis, one’s proverbial jaw is likely resting on the floor. If not, the reader is either not understanding it, or is refusing to allow its significance to soak in.
Amidst the flux and uncertainly that often characterizes so much in science, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, has appeared to be a nearly unshakeable bastion of certainty. But the number of critics is growing, along with the evidence that the basic tenet of random mutations explains all-does not, and in fact, explains very little. If Joseph is correct, the days of Darwinism are indeed numbered.
Amidst the flux and uncertainly that often characterizes so much in science, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, has appeared to be a nearly unshakeable bastion of certainty. But the number of critics is growing, along with the evidence that the basic tenet of random mutations explains all-does not, and in fact, it explains very little. If Joseph is correct, the days of Darwinism are indeed numbered.
For Urantia Book readers, it will become obvious that Joseph’s conclusions are very much in line with the book’s understanding of evolution, an understanding that up until now has been clearly out of step with current scientific theory. Evolution, according to The Urantia Book, is neither accidental nor random, but reflects the progressive unfolding of life, according to a predetermined plan, and culminates in intelligent, self-conscious life:
“The long drawn out processes of peoples, planets, and universes are under the perfect control of the universe creators and administrators and unfold in accordance with the eternal purpose of the universal Father, proceeding in harmony and order and in keeping with the all-wise plan of God.” (The Urantia Book, UB 3:2.2)
Joseph expressed it this way: “Nor is there anything random about the evolution of species, and there is an obvious progression from single cell to women and man. Only nihilists, those who fear the ‘guiding hand of god,’ and those claiming that bacteria and humans have an equal value, would argue otherwise.” (p. 154)
While Joseph doesn’t fear using the idea of God, he does not posit the necessity of a Creator and seems to allow that in an almost ageless universe, life — DNA — and its ability to learn and engineer increasingly intelligent life, could have somehow evolved without direction. Philosophically, of course, this does not solve the question of beginnings and how intelligence and consciousness could emerge from fundamental matter.
However, it does add fuel for the long standing debate that has unfortunately become polarized along the lines of Darwinian “evolution” vs. “intelligent design” as championed by Creationists. What is largely missing from the debate is the option of intelligent “evolution by design,” (my words) which I believe The Urantia Book affirms and the research of Joseph and others support. If the fundamentalist view of Creationism seems naïve and dogmatic, the challenge can be made that Darwinism is equally so. In the closing chapter of their book, “Cosmic Life-Force,” Hoyle and Wickramasinghe make the observation: “Any weakening of the carefully erected Darwinian edifice, it is thought, would open the flood gates to fundamentalist dogma. The truth must be that there is a lot that is basically wrong with Darwinism and a good deal that is in essence, though not in detail, right with the fundamentalist point of view. Whatever the historical circumstances might be, there can be no justification at all for rejecting outright the concept of cosmic life and the logic of a creation. The facts clearly point in this direction.” 5
Although scientific thought and traditions change slowly, Urantia Book readers may well find in the not too distant future that its supposedly out of touch science of evolution is slowly and surely becoming mainstream.
Merlyn Cox is a retired United Methodist pastor, a member of the Ft Wayne Urantia Society, and current editor of The Spiritual Fellowship Journal,
| A Careful Examination of the “Not Inspired” Disclaimers of The Urantia Book (Part I) | Spring 2005 — Index | On the Supreme: An Essay |