2012daily's blog

ERNST CHAIN – NOBEL LAUREATE IN MEDICINE AND PHYSIOLOGY

Nobel Prize: Sir Ernst Chain (1906-1979) received the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology “for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases.”

Nationality: German

Education: Ernst Chain graduated in chemistry and physiology from Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin with a Ph.D. degree in 1930.

Occupation: Researcher at the Institute of Pathology in Berlin (1930-33), Cambridge University (1933-35), Oxford University (1936-48) and Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome (1948-1961); Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College, University of London (1961-1973); Chain was a chairman of the World Health Organization.

1. Concerning the Materialistic theory of evolution Ernst Chain (who is a theistic evolutionist) states:

“I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.

I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” (Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147-148).

2. In his speech, which he made at the World Jewish Conference of Intellectuals in 1965, Chain said:

“While we have witnessed astonishing technological progress over the last 4,000 years, human relations have remained essentially unchanged since the time the Torah was written, and have to be regulated by very much the same laws.

For this reason the fundamental teaching of Judaism, as expressed in the Old Testament, and developed by the great sages of the Middle Ages, one unitarian Almighty, benevolent, all-pervading, eternal Divine force, of which the spirit of man was created an image, is for me still the most rational way of accepting man’s position and fate in this world and the Universe.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 154).

3. In a speech made when he accepted a Doctorate of Philosophy Honoris Causa from Bar-Llan University (Israel), Chain said:

“It must be remembered that, quite apart from the ephemeral nature of scientific theories, pure science is ethically neutral. No value of good or bad is attached to any natural constant, or, for that matter, any scientific observation in any field. However, in our relations to our fellow-men – and this includes, in particular, the applications of scientific research – we must be guided by an ethical code of behaviour, and pure science cannot provide it.

In the search for an ethical code of behaviour we have to look for more lasting values than scientific discoveries or theories. We, the Jewish people, have had the extraordinary privilege to have been given a lasting code of ethical values in the divinely inspired laws and traditions of Judaism which have become the basic pillars of the Western world.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 146).

4. “I consider the power to believe to be one of the great divine gifts to man through which he is allowed in some inexplicable manner to come near to the mysteries of the Universe without understanding them. The capability to believe is as characteristic and as essential a property of the human mind as is its power of logical reasoning, and far from being incompatible with the scientific approach, it complements it and helps the human mind to integrate the world into an ethical and meaningful whole.

There are many ways in which people are made aware of their power to believe in the supremacy of Divine guidance and power: through music or visual art, some event or experience decisively influencing their life, looking through a microscope or telescope, or just by looking at the miraculous manifestations or purposefulness of Nature.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 143).

5. In his public lecture “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society” (University of London, February 1970) Sir Ernst Chain declared:

“As far as my own actions are concerned, I am trying to be guided by the laws, ethics and traditions of Judaism as formulated in the Old Testament, which are, of course, also the basis of Christianity. I am convinced, and have been for many years, that it is impossible to construct a sort of absolute and generally applicable code of ethical behaviour on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, if only for the reason that our knowledge about the basic problems of life is far too fragmentary and limited, and will always remain so.

… We all know that scientific theories, in whatever field, are ephemeral and likely to be shaken in their foundations, and may be even turned upside down by the discovery of one single new fact which does not fit into the existing system. For this reason I do not believe that it is possible to construct an absolute code of ethical conduct and of moral values on the basis of scientific knowledge alone, as this must always remain fragmentary and built on flimsy premises and, therefore, can easily lead to misleading conclusions which may have to be corrected in the light of new evidence.” (E. Chain, “Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 366). (p> 6. Chain described “the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man” thus:

“Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories from animal ethological studies, and in particular ethological studies on primates, must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve.

It may be amusing for those engaged in the task to describe their fellow man as naked apes, and a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach – which, by the way, is neither new nor original – does not really lead us very far.

We do not need to be expert zoologists, anatomists or physiologists to recognise that there exist some similarities between apes and man, but surely we are much more interested in the differences than the similarities. Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals.” (Chain 1971, 368).

7. “Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.” (Chain, as cited in Clark 1985, 147).

8. Concerning the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution Chain wrote:

“It is, of course, nothing but a truism, and not a scientific theory, to say that living systems do not survive if they are not fit to survive.

To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the 19th century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.

This hypothesis wilfully neglects the principle of teleological purpose which stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks, whether he be engaged in the study of different organs in one organism, or even of different subcellular compartments in relation to each other in a single cell, or whether he studies the interrelation and interactions of various species. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Chain 1971, 367).

Nobel Prize: Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968) received the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize for his struggle against racism and for his efforts to bring about integration within the United States without violence. King was assassinated by a sniper on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march.

Nationality: American

Education: B.A. in sociology, Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, 1948; Ph.D. in Systematic Theology, Boston University, 1955

Occupation: President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957-1968); Baptist minister (1947-68)

1. Martin Luther King closed his last speech “I’ve been to the Mountain Top” (April 3, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee) with the words:

“I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountain top. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. And so I’m happy tonight, I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” (Excerpt from King’s last speech, before he was assassinated on April 4, 1968; see Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., New York, Newmarket Press, 1983, 94).

2. In his Nobel Lecture (December 11, 1964, University of Oslo) King stated:

“Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth. If we feel this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with starvation and ill health when we have the means to help them.” (King, as cited in Peace!, Marek Thee - editor, UNESCO Publishing, 1995, 374).

3. In his address delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom (17 May 1957, Washington, D.C.) King said:

“We must meet hate with love. We must meet physical force with soul force. There is still a voice crying out through the vista of time, saying: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ Then, and only then, can you matriculate into the university of eternal life. That same voice cries out in terms lifted to cosmic proportions: ‘He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.’ And history is replete with the bleached bones of nations that failed to follow this command. We must follow nonviolence and love.

Now, I’m not talking about a sentimental, shallow kind of love. I’m not talking about eros, which is a sort of aesthetic, romantic love. I’m not even talking about philia, which is a sort of intimate affection between personal friends.

But I’m talking about agape. I’m talking about the love of God in the hearts of men. I’m talking about a type of love, which will cause you to love the person who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does.” (King 1957a).

4. “I have decided to love. If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love. And the beautiful thing is that we aren’t moving wrong when we do it, because John was right, God is love. He who hates does not know God, but he who loves has the key that unlocks the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.” (King 1967).

5. “Whatever we do, we must keep God in the forefront. Let us be Christians in all of our actions. But I want to tell you this evening that it is not enough for us to talk about love; love is one of the pivotal points of the Christian faith. There is another side called justice. And justice is really love in calculation. Justice is love correcting that which revolts against love.” (King 1955).

6. In his address delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom (17 May 1957, Washington, D.C.) King stated:

“I conclude by saying that each of us must keep faith in the future. Let us not despair. Let us realize that as we struggle for justice and freedom, we have cosmic companionship. This is the long faith of the Hebraic-Christian tradition: that God is not some Aristotelian Unmoved Mover who merely contemplates upon himself. He is not merely a self-knowing God, but an other-loving God forever working through history for the establishment of His kingdom.

And those of us who call the name of Jesus Christ find something of an event in our Christian faith that tells us this. There is something in our faith that says to us, ‘Never despair; never give up; never feel that the cause of righteousness and justice is doomed’.” (King 1957a).

7. In his Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (December 10, 1964, Oslo, Norway) Dr. King stated:

“I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.

‘And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid.’

I still believe that we shall overcome.” (Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1983, 91).

8. Dr. King maintained that there was no conflict between his religious faith and his social activity: “We believe firmly in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. I can see no conflict between our devotion to Jesus Christ and our present action. In fact, I can see a necessary relationship. If one is truly devoted to the religion of Jesus he will seek to rid the earth of social evils. The gospel is social as well as personal.” (King, as cited in Stephen B. Oates, The Life of Martin Luther King, Jr., NY, Harper and Row, 1982, 81-82).

9. In his speech given at the March on Washington (August 28, 1963) King said:

“I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plains, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” (Martin Luther King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1983, 95).

Apple has announced today that "[It] has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple."

The world morns this transformational figure of technology.

October 5, 2011

JOHN ECCLES – NOBEL LAUREATE IN MEDICINE AND PHYSIOLOGY

Nobel Prize: Sir John Eccles (1903–1997) received the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for establishing the relationship between inhibition of nerve cells and repolarization of a cell’s membrane. Eccles’ other significant contributions were primarily in the area of brain research. Eccles is one of the greatest neurophysiologists of the XXth century; he is one of the founders of modern electrophysiology.

Nationality: Australian; later British and American resident

Education: M.A. and Ph.D., Oxford University, 1929

Occupation: Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, Australian National University (Canberra), State University of NY, etc.

1. In his article “Modern Biology and the Turn to Belief in God” that he wrote for the book, The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984), John Eccles came to the following conclusion:

“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance.

We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” (Eccles 1984, 50).

2. In an interview published in the scientific anthology, The Voice of Genius (1995), Prof. Eccles stated:

“There is a fundamental mystery in my personal existence, transcending the biological account of the development of my body and my brain. That belief, of course, is in keeping with the religious concept of the soul and with its special creation by God.” (Eccles, as cited in Brian 1995, 371).

3. “I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual creation. To give the explanation in theological terms: each Soul is a new Divine creation which is implanted into the growing foetus at some time between conception and birth.” (Eccles 1991, 237).

4. In The Human Mystery, Eccles writes: “I believe that there is a Divine Providence operating over and above the materialist happenings of biological evolution.” (Eccles 1979, 235).

5. “If I consider reality as I experience it, the primary experience I have is of my own existence as a unique self-conscious being which I believe is God-created.” (Eccles, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, 161).

6. Eccles described the so-called ‘promissory materialism’ thus:

“There has been a regrettable tendency of many scientists to claim that science is so powerful and all pervasive that in the not too distant future it will provide an explanation in principle for all phenomena in the world of nature, including man, even of human consciousness in all its manifestations. In our recent book (The Self and Its Brain, Popper and Eccles, 1977) Popper has labelled this claim as promissory materialism, which is extravagant and unfulfillable.

Yet on account of the high regard for science, it has great persuasive power with the intelligent laity because it is advocated unthinkingly by the great mass of scientists who have not critically evaluated the dangers of this false and arrogant claim.” (Eccles 1979, p. I).

7. With respect to ‘promissory materialism’, in his book How the Self Controls Its Brain (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994), Eccles wrote:

“I regard this theory as being without foundation. The more we discover scientifically about the brain the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena and the more wonderful do the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a superstition held by dogmatic materialists. It has all the features of a Messianic prophecy, with the promise of a future freed of all problems - a kind of Nirvana for our unfortunate successors.” (Eccles 1994).

8. In his book Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self (London: Routledge, 1991), Eccles wrote:

“I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition.

We have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in a material world.” (Eccles 1991, 241).

9. “Since materialist solutions fail to account for our experienced uniqueness, I am constrained to attribute the uniqueness of the self or soul to a supernatural spiritual creation.

This conclusion is of inestimable theological significance. It strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation.” (Eccles 1994, 168).

10. “As a dualist I believe in the reality of the world of mind or spirit as well as in the reality of the material world. Furthermore I am a finalist in the sense of believing that there is some Design in the processes of biological evolution that has eventually led to us self-conscious beings with our unique individuality; and we are able to contemplate and we can attempt to understand the grandeur and wonder of nature.” (Eccles 1979, 9).

Eccles’ teacher, the Nobelist in neurophysiology Sir Charles Sherrington, too, is a dualist; Sherrington maintains that our nonmaterial mind is fundamentally different from our physical body. Sherrington believes in an almighty Deity and Natural Religion. (See Charles Sherrington, Man on His Nature. The Gifford Lectures in Natural Theology, Cambridge University Press, 1975, 59 and 293). There are many other Nobel scientists, who have explored thoroughly the mind-body problem, and who are staunch dualists: George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, E. Schroedinger, Brian D. Josephson, Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Roger Sperry, Albert Szent-Gyoergyi, Walter R. Hess, Henri Bergson, Alexis Carrel, etc. (See Margenau and Varghese 1997, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’; see also Popper and Eccles 1977, The Self and Its Brain).

See the chapters on George Wald, Nevill Mott, M. Planck, and E. Schroedinger in this book.

11. In his article “Scientists in Search of the Soul” (Science Digest, 1982), the science writer John Gliedman pointed out:

“Eccles strongly defends the ancient religious belief that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical body and intangible spirit. Each of us embodies a nonmaterial thinking and perceiving self that ‘entered’ our physical brain sometime during embryological development or very early childhood, says the man who helped lay the cornerstones of modern neurophysiology. This ‘ghost in the machine’ is responsible for everything that makes us distinctly human: conscious self-awareness, free will, personal identity, creativity and even emotions such as love, fear, and hate. Our nonmaterial self controls its “liaison brain” the way a driver steers a car or a programmer directs a computer. Man’s ghostly spiritual presence, says Eccles, exerts just the whisper of a physical influence on the computerlike brain, enough to encourage some neurons to fire and others to remain silent. Boldly advancing what for most scientists is the greatest heresy of all, Eccles also asserts that our nonmaterial self survives the death of the physical brain.” (Gliedman 1982, 77).

12. “We can regard the death of the body and brain as dissolution of our dualist existence. Hopefully, the liberated soul will find another future of even deeper meaning and more entrancing experiences, perhaps in some renewed embodied existence in accord with traditional Christian teaching.” (Eccles 1991, 242).

13. “I do believe that we are the product of the creativity of what we call God. I hope that this life will lead to some future existence where my self or soul will have another existence, with another brain, or computer if you like. I don’t know how I got this one, it’s a pretty good one, and I’m grateful for it, but I do know as a realist that it will disappear.

But I think my conscious self or soul will come through.” (Eccles, as cited in Gilling and Brightwell, The Human Brain, 1982, 180).

14. In his book The Human Mystery, Sir John Eccles said: “The amazing success of the theory of evolution has protected it from significant critical evaluation in recent times. However it fails in a most important respect. It cannot account for the existence of each one of us as unique, self-conscious beings.” (Eccles 1979, 96).

15. Sir John Eccles maintains that the will of the human beings is free, and that’s why he denies the so-called physical determinism: “If physical determinism is true, then that is the end of all discussion or argument; everything is finished. There is no philosophy. All human persons are caught up in this inexorable web of circumstances and cannot break out of it. Everything that we think we are doing is an illusion.” (See Popper and Eccles, 1977, 546).

16. “With self-conscious purpose a person has a great challenge in choosing what life to live.

One can choose to live dedicated to the highest values, truth, love, and beauty, with gratitude for the divine gift of life with its wonderful opportunities of participating in human culture. One can do this in accord with opportunities. For example, one of the highest achievements is to create a human family living in a loving relationship. I was brought up religiously under such wonderful conditions, for which I can be eternally grateful. There are great opportunities in a life dedicated to education or science or art or to the care of the sick. Always one should try to be in a loving relationship with one’s associates. We are all fellow beings mysteriously living on this wonderful spaceship planet Earth that we should cherish devotedly, but not worship.” (Eccles, as cited in Templeton 1994, 131).

17. In his letter to Erika Erdmann (December 19, 1990), Eccles said:

“You refer to protection of our Earth as the most urgent goal at present. I disagree. It is to save mankind from materialist degradation. It comes in the media, in the consumer society, in overriding quest for power and money, in the degradation of our values (that used to be thought as based on love, truth, and beauty), and in the disintegration of the human family.” (Eccles 1990).

18. “I repudiate philosophies and political systems which recognize human beings as mere things with a material existence of value only as cogs in the great bureaucratic machine of the state, which thus becomes a slave state. The terrible and cynical slaveries depicted in Orwell’s ‘1984’ are engulfing more and more of our planet.

Is there yet time to rebuild a philosophy and a religion that can give us a renewed faith in this great spiritual adventure, which for each of us is a human life lived in freedom and dignity?” (Eccles 1979, 237).

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882), founder of the Theory of Evolution

1. Charles Darwin ended his most fundamental scientific work The Origin of Species (1872, 6th edition) with the words:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Darwin 1928, 463).

2. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” (Darwin 1995, 60).

3. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” (Darwin 1928, 462; The Origin of Species).

4. “With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically.

I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.” (Darwin 1993, 224).

5. In 1879, three years before the end of his life, Darwin wrote that he had “never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).

6. In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).