I recently reread this book and noticed I didn't review it the first time, so...

This is a very accessible book for those not in the sciences, though, as with any book worth reading, it does require some effort. Nothing too strenuous, just making sure to read actively and think about what is being presented.

I also think this is one of those books that you don't have to "agree or disagree" with, it is far more valuable to understand it on its own terms then work through how well you think it presents its case. Since Gould is his big foil here, I'll use him as an example. You don't have to decide one is right and the other wrong, you can judge the arguments as more or less likely or persuasive. You may, as I did, find areas of agreement in both and ultimately think there is another explanation that might be even more accurate than either, even if we don't yet have it.

I noticed at least one pop, and I mean pop, science writer seemed to find the book less to his liking. Jealousy is a sad thing, especially when his work is no better and, largely, worse. But opinions are just that, both his and mine.

A World from Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life, by Ben McFarland, can at times be a difficult read, but despite that, and regardless of some writing/structural issues, it’s an often engaging and always confidently informative exploration of how life was driven down certain paths by the implacable requirements of chemistry.

McFarland’s perspective contrasts directly, as he describes on several occasions, with Stephen J. Gould’s pronouncement that if the “tape of life” were rerun from the beginning, the end result would be wildly different (meaning we humans most likely wouldn’t be around to notice that). McFarland argues that Gould may have a point in a very narrow sense, but is incorrect when one takes a broader viewpoint, because the chemistry of the planet, as well as its geology (often driven by the chemistry) meant only certain channels were available for life. Geology and chemistry constrained and directed biology, leading it down a limited number of pathways while blocking off others completely. Or as he puts it:

Gould is right when it comes to individual species, but I think he is wrong at the broader levels of ecosystems and planetary evolution . . . the tape of life is likely more predictable . . . something less like a tape and more like a river, its liquid flow channeled by the solid banks of chemical laws.

The organizing principle of chemistry is the periodic table, and McFarland takes that as the organizing principle of the book as well, laying out why the element’s positions on the tightly structured table qualify them or disqualify them as engines of life. To that end, he covers a fair amount of physics and biochemistry at an often highly detailed level, discussing electron orbits, ion channels, charges, bonds, structures of molecules, cell mechanics, and the like. The book is replete with diagrams which often helped with the difficult science, though at least in the Kindle edition the layout created more obstacles than it should have, making them less effective. The same is true of some of McFarland’s metaphors, with some simplifying things and others not being quite as effective as teaching tools.

But if one weathers the sometimes difficult nature (I’m assuming a lay audience here), it makes for a fascinating and certainly mostly understandable story—the creation of the elements in space, how they make their way to being part of the Earth, the “evolution” of minerals (a concept that makes perfect sense but that I’d never thought of before), the ways bit by bit that life began to incorporate new chemistry in a progression toward generally increasing complexity. Within that tale McFarland discusses the origin of life, the possibility of life on other planets, the creation of the moon, the many extinction events, the ice ages, the oxygenation of the planet and the huge repercussions from that event, and finally the impact of the human brain and “eusociality” on evolution itself.

McFarland’s personality shines through in his non-science referents, such as allusion to J.R. R. Tolkien and his experience with a Wagner opera. These moments are relatively rare but welcome, not only humanizing our guide and adding a lighter touch but also reminding us that these processes are not aloof from our personal day to day experiences, our lived lives, but are part and parcel of it.

McFarland’s sometimes stumbles, occasionally gets in his own way, sometimes dives a bit too deep into the weeds perhaps for a lay audience, but I have no complaints about a book that requires you to pay attention, to retain what the author mentioned a page or twenty or a hundred back, or to even, gasp, reread a passage or two. The book rewards the reader’s attention, and there’s no doubt anyone finishing A Word from Dust will have a greater understanding of how we got to where we are today and how pivotal a role basic chemistry played in that journey.