In terminology, dead chemical, as contrasted with a living chemical, is a religio-mythology anthropism of a chemical, i.e. atom, molecule, complex, or compound, etc., affixed with label of not being alive (i.e. dead or having no life); akin to a "soulless atom", by comparison.

In 1799, German philosopher Friedrich Schelling, in his First Outline of a System of Philosophical Nature, in discussion of animal electricity work of Luigi Galvani, stated the following: [1]

“This process is an effect of galvanism, and for the time being can only be argued analogically from the action of galvanism on dead chemical substances (about which, moreover, still little is known) to the higher action.”

In 1809, Goethe, in his Elective Affinities (P1:C4), via the voice of the Captain, in his three-person dialogue on the comparisons between human interactions and chemical reactions, states the following:

“What we call limestone is more or less pure calcium oxide intimately united with a thin acid known to us in the gaseous state. If you put a piece of this limestone into dilute sulfuric acid, the latter will seize on the lime and join with it to form calcium sulfate, or gypsum; that thin gaseous acid, on the other hand escapes. Here there has occurred a separation and new combination, and one then feels justified even in employing the term ‘elective affinity’, because it really does look as if one relationship was preferred to another and chosen instead of it. You ought yourself to see these creatures, which seem so dead [appear lifeless], and which are yet so full of inward energy and force, at work before your eyes. You should observe them with a real personal interest. Now they seek each other out, attract each other, seize, crush, devour, destroy each other, and then suddenly reappear again out of their combinations, and come forward in fresh, renovated, unexpected form; thus you will comprehend how we attribute to them a sort of immortality [credits them with an eternal life]—how we speak of them as having sense and understanding; because we feel our own senses to be insufficient to observe them adequately, and our reason too weak to follow them.”

In 1903, Austrian polyintellectual philosopher Otto Weininger, in his Eros and Psyche or Sex and Character: A Fundamental Investigation, building on the human chemical theory platform of Goethe (1809), stated the following: [4]

“The law of sexual affinity is analogous in another respect to a well-known law of theoretical chemistry, although, indeed, there are marked differences. The violence of a chemical reaction is proportionate to the mass of the substances involved, as, or instance, a stronger acid solution unites with a stronger basic solution with greater avidity, just as is the case of the union of a pair of living beings with strong maleness and femaleness. But there is a difference between the living process and the reaction of the lifeless chemical substances. The living organism is not homogenous and isotropic in its composition; it is not divisible into a number of small parts of identical properties. The difference depends on the principle of individuality, on the fact that that every living thing is an individual, and that its individuality is essentially structural. And so in the vital process it is not as in inorganic chemistry; and there is no possibility of a larger proportion forming one compound, a smaller proportion forming another.”

In 2006, philosopher C.W. Adams, in his Actuality: Life in the Real World, outlined a number of dead chemicals to humans stylized arguments; such as: [2]

Accidental evolution would require not only living chemicals somehow distinguishing themselves from dead chemicals, but also chemicals desiring to lengthen the lives of their descendent chemical combinations. What mechanism gave such living chemicals the impetus to increase the chances of their descendants’ survival? The implication of this is that not only will a batch of chemicals struggle to survive and avoid death, but that they will also adapt in ways that won’t necessarily help them survive any better, but will help their descendants. What gave these chemicals the ability to calculate structural changes to improve the chances of survival for future species?

In 2008, Adams, in his The Science of Truth, stated the same argument as follows: [3]

“Why would a lifeless or previously lifeless bag of chemicals decide it was important that future generations even exist, let alone improve their chances of survival? While we might quickly assume that living organisms would want to produce offspring with grater chances of survival, there is no rational reason for this desire. Why would a selfishly motivated newly living organism care about a future generation? First accidental evolutionists make a huge leap assuming that life somehow spontaneously generated from chemicals. Then they make a huge leap that these newly living chemicals somehow preferred survival and pain as opposed to a painless existence of nonlife. Then they make another huge leap by assuming that these newly living chemicals could and would want to dilute their strength to produce offspring that require only trouble and work to maintain. They against all odds, evolution theory proponents take the leap in assuming that these newly living chemicals somehow created an ‘unselfish gene’ that somehow passed on improvements for the future survival of future generations who do nothing for that newly living chemical itself. All of this was done by newly living chemicals that not much different in substance from their dead chemical cousins? The only answer accidental evolutionists seem to give us to these questions is that this all must have been a series of random accidents.”

(add discussion)

The following are other related quotes:

“To get series of even 1,500 events to happen on order, events that might be moving from non-living chemicals to a living cell, there is only one chance in ten to the power of 450! This means that the probability of godless evolution even getting started is zero. Without belief in God, the only option [is to believe that] purposeless, mindless evolution of non-living chemicals over aeons of time [resulted in the formation of] a living cell and ultimately into man.”
— Jobe Martin (1994) (Ѻ)

“Some microbiologists even go so far as to say that viruses are non-living chemicals. Viruses occupy the twilight zone between the living and the nonliving. ln 1935, Stanley demonstrated that viruses could be crystallised like chemicals. In 1956, Geire and Sehramn extracted infections nucleic acid from a virus that could infect a host cell and go on to replicate. This made them classify viruses as living chemicals.”
— Pushpa Khurana (2005) (Ѻ)

Spontaneous generation is a term referring to the manifestation of living organisms from non-living chemicals (also called abiogenesis). Evolutionists vehemently deny that they believe in spontaneous generation, but if you probe them about the appearance the first living organism, they will say that somehow it must have come from non-living chemicals. The name for this non-living mixture that they think spawned life varies: primordial goo, prebiotic soup, ancient oceans, etc. Some evolutionists, after admitting that they believe nonlife produced life, will argue with you that they do not believe in spontaneously generation, though they believe precisely the definition of spontaneous generation.”
— Brock Lee (2009) (Ѻ)

1. Schelling, Friedrich. (1799). First Outline of a System of Philosophical Nature (pg. 129). SUNY Press, 2012.
2. Adams, C.W. (2006). Actuality: Life in the Real World (§:How could Chemicals have a Desire to Survive , pgs. 84-85; §:Chemicals Cannot Decide to Extend Their Successor’s Lives”, pgs. 86-87). C.W. Adams.
3. Adams, C.W. (2008). The Science of Truth (pg. 159). Science of Truth Publishing.
4. Weininger, Otto. (1903). Eros and Psyche or Sex and Character: A Fundamental Investigation (Geschlecht und Charakter: Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung) (lifeless chemical substances, pg. 41). Vienna: Braumüller & Co.

TDics icon ns