Ben McFarland

Francis Bacon wrote: "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few are to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention." This is one of those that has to be chewed and digested and it has taken me much longer than normal to work my way through the 270 pages. Finally, I've finished it. It's taken me about 3 weeks and, I must admit, it has been a real slog. Yes, I think it's really worth reading but it is not easy reading. I suspect the author has taken a series of his lectures ...which probably each stood quite well on its own....and turned it into a book. He seems to think that by putting chemistry into friendly, colourful language, that he makes it more understandable. For example, p142..."If the purple systems tend to be poets and painters, using colourful pigments to turn APT-cycles, then the green systems are sculptors, laying down molecules of gas-like bricks using electrons as the mortar". To some extent, he is successful with this technique but there is just so much to cover and it is both complex and detailed. Hence, not easy to absorb in one reading. I might also add, that although I am not a chemist, I did a lot of chemistry at university .....physical, quantitative, organic and biochemistry....so, in general, have the language to understand what he is writing about. Though it has encouraged me to revisit my knowledge about atomic orbitals......and, in the process....realise that chemistry is still being taught in a vague mish-mash of differing concepts and descriptions of the atom. Still rather driven by Bohr's model ...even though it's known to be incorrect. And there appears to be a paucity of 3D modelling of atomic interactions on-line. (Many static drawings but very few dynamic interactive models...and then only of simple atoms like two hydrogen atoms sharing outer electrons). And electrons still seem to be treated as little spheres ...even though this is known to be an incorrect way to visualise them. I don't know what is the solution but maybe we need a total revolution in the way our chemistry text books are being written and taught).

Anyway, at the detailed level, in McFarland's book, there is an issue of the sheer volume ...and, to a certain extent, repetitiveness...with electrons being "pushed" on here or "subtracted" somewhere else...that it is hard to retain, However, at a slightly higher level he manages to maintain his story about the inevitability of the chemistry (as set out in the periodic table) driving our universe in a particular direction. And, as he is especially concerned with life, the drive is from the left of the periodic table towards the right.
McFarland, is also successful in getting his point across that life has evolved from a sulphur/iron based chemistry to an oxygen based chemistry and he links this story in quite well to the geology of the earth...the changes in minerals in the oceans and the changes in the atmosphere.

He has some quite powerful illustrations ..such as the Irving-Williams series of metal bindings on p30 and the relative abundance of the elements in the universe on p 47. And these are extremely useful in understanding his basic arguments. However, the book would be greatly improved by the use of colour (some of the diagrams are very difficult to interpret ..eg p84...the concentration of elements in the oceans ...and would have been greatly enhanced by the use of colour...or even more judicious shading/printing. In fact, I often found myself longing for diagram instead of his prose to explain some reaction). If there is an overall criticism it would be that the book is too "prosey" and needs more and better diagrams. Using folksy prose to explain some complex interaction with proteins and sodium/potassium pumps, for example, just doesn't cut-it.

Was it worth struggling with for three weeks? Yes, I think it was. He has made me look at things in a different way. He has reinforced the value of the periodic table in determining chemistry ...that, plus a few rules about abundance and size of atoms. He has woven an interesting and coherent narrative but the interplay of chemistry on geology and geology on biology and biology on chemistry and geology in turn.
I rather liked the way he takes on Gould's version of haphazard evolution and stakes out his own view that the laws of chemistry dictate that things will evolve in a fairly predictable way.

So, yes, this is a book that does require "chewing and digesting" and it is not easy to "digest" it but it carries some powerful messages and it is worth persisting. He has intrigued me with the work of RJP Williams and I am about to read some of his (William's) work first hand. There are also a lot of references to other intriguing work and I will probably follow up with some of this ....such as "Complexity and the arrow of time".

One thing that I found myself wondering about and that is the fact that the chemistry of our periodic table is very much beholden to the "normal" ranges of temperature and pressure that we experience now on earth. I wonder how things might have been different if earth had an environment where, say, the temperatures were very much hotter....or the pressures were very much greater. (In fairness to McFarland, he does consider this sort of chemistry in other parts of the solar system P75, and explains why things (and, especially, life) might not have evolved in these circumstances.
I rate it 5 stars even if I did find it difficult going.… (mehr)