Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

“Professor Dave” goes after eminent chemist James Tour

Spread the love

Readers will recall that James Tour offers a series at YouTube on origin of life.

Professor Dave responded with a diatribe:

Who is Professor Dave? His name is Dave Farina and EducationWeek tells us,

Farina, who taught in high school and undergraduate classrooms for 10 years before turning into a YouTuber, received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Minnesota’s Carleton College and a master’s in chemistry and science education at California State University. His career included a full-time position teaching chemistry, biology, and physics at a private school in Hollywood, and substitute teaching in the San Francisco Bay Area, before transitioning to lecturing at a trade university.

Michelle Goldchain, “‘Professor Dave’ Explains How He Attracted 345,000 YouTube Subscribers” at EducationWeek (March 6, 2019)

Organic chemist Royal Truman (who isn’t on YouTube, so sent us text) responds:


Typical evolutionist strategy: A. Insult your opponent and speak with such authority the ignorant will figure they must know what they are talking about. No sane person would be so arrogant and risk looking foolish, right? B. Spread the opposition thin. We can’t respond to this flood of nonsense from all sides. 95% of all this dribble remains unanswered.

I don’t think origin of life researchers will be too pleased with a video so hopelessly flawed that it makes the community look dumb. If I were Prof. D. I would discretely remove this video. Dead serious.

Some of us with PhD’s in organic chemistry actually understood Tour’s arguments. Where to start with all Prof. D’s errors? I’ll stop at half a dozen.

(1) Prof. Tour points out that converting molecules A->B->C-> leads to mostly unwanted side products and low yields for every step unless carefully controlled. Eventually, one runs out of material, unless the reaction steps are each carefully designed and executed. Prof. D. claims this is irrelevant since “autocatalytic cycles would solve this”. Uh, is this supposed to be a joke? Is he saying the whole reaction series needs to be organized, such that each conversion step is part of an autocatalyzed cycle; and then all of these are linked together? That is insane. This is chemical gibberish, even more so in the natural world.

(2) Gas-phase chemistry which produces simple molecules like CO, SiO, NH3, CH4, etc. in space are “relevant to abiogenesis” we are told. Right. And also, to space ships and computers and, I suppose, to an integrated chemical plant. Tour offers his opponents all of these chemicals they want in pure form. Now, he says, show how true RNA, DNA and proteins can form naturally.

(3) Prof. D. brings up “self-replicating ribozymes” as if these carefully synthesized molecules (manufactured ultimately using optically pure biological enzymes) would be available naturally. He never mentions how the cycles are carefully guided by changing temperatures and other details at just the right time, nor that after a few cycles everything degrades to become worthless. Cellular process are utterly different mechanistically and reliable for millions of cycles.

(4) Prof. D. claims a “Continuum between replicating chemical systems and biological systems.” That is absurd. Enzymes are coded for on DNA, nothing remotely related occurs naturally. There is no continuum. No replicators have been reported outside of life, based on complex internal structure. The formation of raindrops or crystallization are obviously not replicators, not being able to synthesize their own components.

(5) Prof. D. should show the viewers a real, naturally occurring autocatalytic system that was not deliberately designed and very, very carefully put together under pristine lab conditions. Even if we are only given a non-natural conceptual example, we’d like to see it’s relevance to how cellular life could have arisen from it.

(6) ee (enantiomer excess): some amino acids are known to crystallize with sometimes more d, other times more l form, under very carefully designed conditions, having no relevance to origin of life scenarios (e.g., a mass of pure asparagine). Prof. D. forgot that such entrapped amino acids can’t polymerize to form proteins. He says thermodynamic stability is irrelevant. Really? What happens under conditions where amino acids polymerize to form proteins, over deep time and equilibrium conditions (like in water)? Nature produces 50:50 d:l forms. Nobody disputes that a small ee excess can form short-term in miniscule sample sizes for stochastic reasons. But life requires vast amounts of 100% pure amino acids, and for statistical reasons large quantities will produce 50:50 mixtures.

I found the ad hominems vulgar and no substitute for an understanding of what Prof. Tour has been explaining. The evidence Prof. D. presented was ridiculously superficial and misleading. If I were him, I’d get rid of this video, since this is a pure gift for Prof. Tour. Other creation scientists or intelligent design specialists could use this as “a typical example of the level of abiogenesis work.”


Dr. Tour responded to Prof Dave graciously:

We are told:

In spite of the continued personal attacks by Professor Dave, Dr James Tour has decided to stand by his invitation…will he accept? For anyone who wonders…this was recorded on April 26th.

If we hear anything more, we’ll let you now.

21 Replies to ““Professor Dave” goes after eminent chemist James Tour

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    ‘Professor’ Dave… just another Darwinian clown who keeps feeding his Darwinian audience with total non-sense… i watched Dave’s rebuttal video already (as his reaction to 13 parts Dr. Tour’s-OOL lecture).

    Of course, not a single word about how Darwinian OOL-researchers use purchased, pre-made chemicals extracted from LIVING!!! organisms to perform their OOL-experiments. They use things from living things to demonstrate how living things emerged :)))))) … it is like in some mental hospital …

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    When two PhDs are arguing about fine points that only other PhDs in the subject can understand, it’s not a public argument. Neither side is going to persuade ordinary scientifically literate people, because nobody is listening.

  3. 3
    Jonathan11 says:

    Did anyone here watch the entire two-part response? I wonder whether it is worth watching him for 2 hours and 20 minutes. Any honest impressions? 🙂

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    One of the very first erroneous claims from “Professor” Dave appears at the 3:33 minute mark of his video,

    “legitimate scientists are nearly non-existent among evangelicals.”

    Huh? If ‘legitimate scientist’ is measured by percentage of college degrees attained, Christians have a large footprint of ‘legitimate scientists’, with some denominations, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and United Church of Christ, outperforming even atheists and agnostics in percentage of college degrees attained,

    The most and least educated U.S. religious groups
    Excerpt: By far, Hindus and Unitarian Universalists have among the largest share of those with a college degree – 77% and 67% respectively. Roughly six-in-ten Jews (59%) have college degrees, as do similar shares in both the Anglican church (59%) and the Episcopal Church (56%).
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

    “Professor” Dave, (who is not a ‘legitimate’ Professor by the way), is either ignorantly, or deliberately, misrepresenting the fact that Christians have very many ‘legitimate’ scientists among their ranks,

    As the following study found that “18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population). ,,, ,,,Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence.”

    Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study – David Ruth – February 16, 2014
    Excerpt: The public’s view that science and religion can’t work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by Rice University also found that scientists and the general public are surprisingly similar in their religious practices.,,
    The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population). ,,,
    ,,,Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence.
    http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/1.....new-study/

    It seems obvious, from the very start of the video, that “Professor” Dave is, in large measure, motivated by an anti-Christian bias where he has, basically, falsely disparaged a large segment of the entire American populace as merely being ignorant rubes.

    From such a sloppy mischaracterization of Christians as being ignorant rubes, it is obvious that “Professor” Dave is far more interested in trying to score points with cheap rhetoric than he is in finding out the actual truth behind the Origin of Life issue.

    Oh well, personally for myself, when one of the very first facts that “Professor” Dave presents in his rebuttal video of Dr. Tour is shown to be patently false, it is of little surprise for me to see that “Professor” Dave handling of the actual facts surrounding OOL research did not improve thereafter.

    I hope that “Professor” Dave will at least have enough character within himself to take Dr. Tour up on his magnanimous, ‘all expenses paid’, offer to publicly debate him.

    Now that would be something worth watching in its entirety,, Popcorn worthy even 🙂

    Does “Professor” Dave have the intellectual integrity to face Dr. Tour man to man instead of hiding behind his cheap rhetoric?

    Time will tell.

  5. 5
    martin_r says:

    Jonathan11 @3

    yes, i did, … if you would like to watch a very offensive primitive vulgar rebuttal video, then go ahead and watch it. This wannabe-professor Dave is a very simple man… And he really seems to believe what he is saying, in other words, he is not doing these videos to catch YOUTUBE followers, but he really thinks he is right. As all Darwinists do … actually, this is a very sad video, but it perfectly illustrates modern atheism / Darwinism (these people are so confused, it is hard to believe that all this is happening in 21st century after all the discoveries made) …

    PS: through the years, i watched lots of debates on evolution/OOL … but this guy Dave, is most a desperate person i ever seen …

  6. 6
    Jonathan11 says:

    @Bornagain77
    Did you watch the entire response?
    His religion bashing is nothing new. This is exactly what I expect to see.

    What about his talking points on OOL, though? Did he get something right, at least?

  7. 7
    Jonathan11 says:

    @Martin_r
    Thanks for the impression. Would you say that he made some valid points? I very briefly skipped through it and saw that he was trying to get at Tour’s argument that Dave was misreading the paper about homochirality. What did you think about that?

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    Jonathan11 @7

    This ‘professor’ Dave features Steven Benner, PhD (a former Harvard Professor, who allegedly is a very respected person in OOL field.) Alright.

    I suggest you watch the part where Benner is interviewed (Benner is saying he watched most of Tour’s lectures…)

    at 1:10:00h (just click the link it brings your to the exact moment)
    https://youtu.be/Jf72o6HmVNk?t=4189

    PS: basically, Benner is confirming what Tour is saying… perhaps there might be some insignificant discoveries Tour is not aware of, but overall, from Benner talk is clear that Tour is right. To interview Benner was a big mistake :))))

    PS: Darwinists always scratch only the surface. On the other hand, Dr. Tour took his precious time to shoot 13 hours long lecture on OOL, to illustrate huge problems wherever you look in OOL-research. When you listen to these Darwinian OOL-researchers, it is always the same… To have an RNA is like to have the problem solved….it is always the same… RNA, RNA, RNA … all what they have is a RNA …

  9. 9
    Jonathan11 says:

    @Martin_r
    Thanks for the Link. I watched that part. My impression was that Benner did not really say that Tour is right overall. He somewhat avoided Dave’s question of whether all or the majority of the problems Tour mentioned are now solved.
    This whole interview part was a huge argument from authority. Dave wanted some credibility and asked someone with a background in that field for his opinion. There were no real arguments (most was just: Shapiro already said this some time ago, we now know more).

  10. 10
    ET says:

    “Professor Dave” best exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Jonathan11, no I did not watch the video in its entirety. I just watched the beginning and then I watched bits and pieces here and there to see if he had anything of substance to add to the debate.

    Basically, I lost complete interest in watching his entire video when he started out his video with a blatant ad hominem attack against Dr. Tour.

    A man who is confident of his facts tries to win his opponent over to his side, as Dr. Tour was, and still is, trying to win “Professor” Dave over to his side, rather than trying to tear the man down, as “Professor” Dave was trying to tear Dr. Tour down.

    There simply would be no need to ‘attack the man’ if the facts are truly on your side.

    That Dr Tour could respond as calmly and eloquently as he did to “Professor” Dave, after the stunt that “Professor” Dave pulled, and seek to have open and honest dialogue with him, is truly a testament to Dr. Tour’s Christian walk. As they say in Christian circles, he is the ‘real deal’.

    If the debate happens I will, in all likelihood, watch it in its entirety.

    Dr. Tour, (rated a top-ten synthetic chemist in the world,,, and I believe some group even named him ‘scientist of the year’ not too long ago), is very confident of his facts and that certainly does not bode well for someone who is obviously heavily reliant on cheap rhetoric to try to make his case.

    Of supplemental note. I will repeat what I stated the other day in regards to present day OOL research.

    “It doesn’t take a PhD in synthetic chemistry to see that all the claims from OOL researchers, (that they are on the verge of creating life from scratch), are severely overblown.”

    Leaving aside the minor detail that no one has figured out the prebiotic routes to the basic building blocks of life: carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, Dr. Tour has offered this following challenge to OOL researchers who believe that they are on the verge of creating life.

    Origin of Life: An Inside Story – Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016
    Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated…
    So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal.
    You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“
    James Tour – leading Chemist
    http://www.uncommondescent.com…..nt-design/

    Dr. Tour reiterated the challenge in 2019:

    (July 2019) “We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I’ve even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, “Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?”. And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).”
    – James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained – 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists)
    https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255

    Dr. Tour also recently asked this very interesting question, i.e. can anyone bring a cell that dies back to life?

    “But let’s, in this thought experiment, say that we already have a functional, working, cell. So everything is in place. But now the cell just dies. Just died a nano-second ago. Just died. What did we just lose and what would we have to do to get it going again because everything is approximately in place? Have we any idea how to get this cell going again?” (To which Stephen Meyer responds), Well, its the Humpty Dumpty problem right. You got all of these pieces but all those pieces does not a living organism make.”
    – The Science & Faith Podcast – James Tour and Stephen Meyer: Life’s Origin: Lab + Information = Mind
    https://youtu.be/x5tUDJ23Kms?t=1038

    Might it be too obvious to point out that if we can’t even bring a dead cell to life, then any claims from OOL researches that they are on the verge of creating life from scratch are, to put it mildly, misguided?

    And if these OOL researchers won’t listen to Dr. Tour, perhaps they will listen to Dr. Venter and/or listen to the results of 128 computers, and be a bit more circumspect and humble in their claims of being on the verge of creating life?

    Minimal Cell Challenges Naturalism – March 26, 2016 | David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: They started over with a “top-down” approach. Beginning with Syn 1.0, they systematically stripped out anything the bacterium could live without. They got it down to 473 genes, about half the size of their Syn 1.0 organism.,,,
    “If we’re already playing God, we’re not doing a particularly good job of it,” Elfick says. “Simply streamlining what’s already in nature doesn’t seem very God-like and, if anything, is a very humbling exercise.”
    Venter also felt the humility vibes, according to Live Science:
    “We’re showing how complex life is even in the simplest of organisms,” said Craig Venter, founder and CEO of the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), where the study was completed. “These findings are very humbling in that regard.”
    https://crev.info/2016/03/minimal-cell-challenges-naturalism/

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    It doesn’t take a PhD in synthetic chemistry to see that all the claims from OOL researchers that they are on the verge of creating life from scratch are severely overblown.

    Supplemental note:

    The “hard problem” of life – Sara Imari Walker, Paul C.W. Davies – 2016
    Excerpt: Chalmer’s famously identified pinpointing an explanation for our subjective experience as the “hard problem of consciousness”. He argued that subjective experience constitutes a “hard problem” in the sense that its explanation will ultimately require new physical laws or principles. Here, we propose a corresponding “hard problem of life” as the problem of how `information’ can affect the world. In this essay we motivate both why the problem of information as a causal agent is central to explaining life, and why it is hard – that is, why we suspect that a full resolution of the hard problem of life will, similar to as has been proposed for the hard problem of consciousness, ultimately not be reducible to known physical principles.
    https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/davies-and-walker-life-not-reducible-to-known-physical-principles/

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  12. 12
    martin_r says:

    Jonathan11 @9 “He (Benner) somewhat avoided Dave’s question of whether all or the majority of the problems Tour mentioned are now solved.” also “There were no real arguments (most was just: Shapiro already said this some time ago, we now know more).”

    Good points. That is what i meant when i said that Benner confirms what Tour is suggesting.

  13. 13
    RavenT says:

    I watched through the whole series, though I don’t pay attention through the whole two series.

    He provides more papers than his first video. Does anyone knows if any of the paper answer JT question? (Especially the paper which title start with “spoiled with choices”)

  14. 14
    EvilSnack says:

    ET @ 10:

    “Professor Dave” best exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    If you watch one of Farina’s videos debunking Flat Earth theory (which are actually very good), he cites Flat-Earth Theorists as exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger effect. To to see him guilty of the same thing is entertaining.

  15. 15
    tjguy says:

    “Prof” Dave’s videos are a HUGE hit with his fan base – which is his intended audience. He is putting on a show for his fans and they absolutely loved it! That’s all he is interested in. He gets more clicks, more subscribers, and more money and he feels very intellectually fulfilled and superior to boot!

    I’ve often thought that It’s quite amazing how unskeptical skeptics really are. They claim they are skeptics, but they are only skeptical when it comes to God. When it comes to their own ideas, ideas like the creative power of blind, random, purposeless natural processes, they are so willing – eager even – to blindly believe any silly idea tossed their way! They can’t believe in supernatural miracles, but in it’s place, they are forced to blindly believe in trillions and trillions of timely miracles of chance. Anything is better to them than entertaining the possibility of a holy God to whom they are accountable to. That would impose on their freedom and limit their fun.

    But I have to agree. It really seems like this guy actually believes the junk he is saying – which is really quite embarrassing. But he doesn’t know that so he’s not embarrassed at all. His smug arrogance insulates him from feeling embarrassed. He’s like the Emperor who had convinced himself he was wearing new clothes but was actually naked! How embarrassing!

    I watched just a little of his rebuttal video and couldn’t stomach it. I was astonished by all the unverified ideas that he spoke about as if they were proven true. I feel bad for the people who have been duped by his rhetoric, arrogance, and lies.

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    All this sounds like Tour, based on his expertise as a synthetic chemist and some ancillary study has no idea how abiogenesis might have happened and says neither does anyone else.

    Which is true as far as I can tell.

    But is Tour’s knowledge in these matters all there is to know? Is the current sum total of human knowledge about synthetic and organic chemistry all there is to know?

    No, of course not.

    Can Tour tell us how his preferred Creator did it? No, he can’t and neither can anyone else.

    So, in spite of all these books, videos and lecture tours it still comes down to ‘we don’t know’.

    The only thing we can agree on is that no one finds that answer satisfactory.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Saying something was the result of intelligent design does NOT equal “we don’t know”. It says that we KNOW that blind and mindless processes did NOT do it. Artifacts don’t stop being artifacts just because we don’t know how they were made.

    “We don’t know” applies only to the mechanistic position, which is materialism. And it kills the concept. It also means there isn’t any reason to allow ID into science classrooms beyond personal ignorance and cowardice.

    So, thanks to the videos and lectures we see people will go to great lengths to promote lies and others will always be there to expose them.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    Seversky @16: “All this sounds like Tour, based on his expertise as a synthetic chemist and some ancillary study has no idea how abiogenesis might have happened and says neither does anyone else. Which is true as far as I can tell.”

    I agree. The problem is, that your Darwinian fellow ‘professor’ Dave (who has 1.5M subscribers on his youtube channel), does not agree. He promotes the same misleading bluf / hype news as the other OOL-researchers do. Moreover, your Darwinian fellow is calling Dr. Tour a liar, he is very vulgar and aggressive, which is a very common feature of any Darwinist. What surprises me, why are Darwinists so self-confident ? After 150 years of Darwinian research, they have not answered any important question and we can see lots of Darwinian fails / frauds through the history…

    Seversky, perhaps you have noticed the other article from May 2021 on “human origins…”, the author of the study is calling human origin research “a big mess”.

    i like this part from the article (a Darwinian article by Sergio Almécija, American museum of natural history):

    “Humans are storytellers: Theories of human evolution often resemble “anthropogenic narratives” that borrow the structure of a hero’s journey to explain essential aspects such as the origins of erect posture, the freeing of the hands, or brain enlargement (166). Intriguingly, such narratives have not drastically changed since Darwin (166). We must be aware of confirmation biases and ad hoc interpretations by researchers aiming to confer their new fossil the starring role within a preexisting narrative. Evolutionary scenarios are appealing because they provide plausible explanations based on current knowledge, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than “just-so stories” (167).”

    let me repeat this part ” Intriguingly, such narratives have not drastically changed since Darwin (166)”

    also this part is very disturbing: “People are working under completely different paradigms, and that’s something that I don’t see happening in other fields of science.”

    Exactly, and it is funny to hear something like that from a Darwinist. I like this guy.

    Anyway, most funniest thing about ‘professor’ Dave is the following:
    Dr. Tour, world’s top expert in nanotechnology, who owns 100+ chemical patents and published 700 scientific papers on chemistry/material science, is allegedly not competent to talk about chemistry of OOL. But, wannabe-professor Dave Farina – a youtuber is very much competent. It is like in some mental hospital ….
    Seversky, you Darwinists are very funny people…

  19. 19
    martin_r says:

    ET @17: “Saying something was the result of intelligent design does NOT equal “we don’t know”.”

    Agreed. I like the way you put it.

    I very often hear about so called ‘scientific consensus’. It occurs to me, that after all the discoveries in molecular biology, a ‘scientific consensus’ about intelligently designed cell/life sounds more rational, than a ‘scientific consensus’ about how blind unguided lucky random process did it.

    So until Darwinian scientists show how blind unguided natural process did it, there should be a scientific consensus that some intelligent agency did it. No need to mention God … A scientific consensus about intelligent agency would sound more rational (in 21st century, after all the discoveries).

    Till then, Darwinian scientists just look stupid … (no offence)

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Martin- If we are going to say “we don’t know” then we canNOT say “we don’t know but we “know” (wink, wink) that it wasn’t intelligently designed”. But that is what the losers are doing.

  21. 21
    martin_r says:

    ET, “we don’t know but we “know” (wink, wink) that it wasn’t intelligently designed”

    right … it is like in some mental hospital … (i used this argument before in my debates)

Leave a Reply