Information Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

Steve Meyer on James Tour’s podcast

Spread the love

James Tour is the famous chemist who debunks far-fetched origin of life claims. Steve Meyer is the author of Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.

The Science & Faith Podcast – James Tour and Steve Meyer: Life’s Origin: Lab + Information = Mind

In this interview, Dr. James Tour and Dr. Stephen Meyer discuss science and faith, while getting into the details on the discovery of complex, sequence specific information required for life’s function and origin, and the required fine-tuned laboratory that we call our universe that must exist in order for assembly to occur.

People are taking reality seriously? What next, we wonder?

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

7 Replies to “Steve Meyer on James Tour’s podcast

  1. 1
    chuckdarwin says:

    Well, if there was ever any doubt that Intelligent Design is anything but jazzed up creationism, this interview proves that a rose by any other name is still a rose…

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    CD, really, trying to resurrect the old creationism in a cheap tuxedo canard. I suggest instead that we would do better to recognise that all worldviews embed first plausibles constituting their faith-points and build plausibility frameworks. So, we could equally point to the a priory materialism in an even cheaper lab coat that drives too much of establishment thought on origins, i.e. re labelled atheism. But more to the point, what we should focus is evidence and its significance. Here, start with alphanumeric, algorithmic, 4-state elements based digital code in the heart of the living cell, i.e. language and goal-directed processes. Then, we can ponder how the observed cosmos is multiply fine tuned in ways that support such C-chem, aqueous medium, smart polymer based life, starting with the abundance of the first four elements: H — stars etc, He gateway to periodic table beyond H, C & O water and organic chemistry, with N close enough, getting us to proteins etc. Those types of observations will always strongly point to design as best explanation, save for those enmeshed in materialistic a priorism. KF

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Chuckdarwin, before bad mouthing James Tour with the old saw ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’, perhaps you would have done well to look at Dr. Tour’s resume first?

    Here are his awards and honors from his resume:

    JAMES M. TOUR Ph.D.
    T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering,,,
    Awards and Honors
    Tour became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2020.
    Awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in materials chemistry with applications in medicine and nanotechnology, 2020.
    Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors, 2015.
    Lady David Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014.
    Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014.
    Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.
    George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, Rice University, 2012.
    ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012.
    Lady David Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011.
    Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009
    Ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009
    Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009
    Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Achievement Award, 2009
    Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, 2008
    NASA Space Act Award, 2008
    Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society, 2007
    George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, Rice University, 2007
    Small Times Magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award, 2006
    Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award, 2006
    Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy, 2006
    American Chemical Society’s #1 Most Accessed Journal Article in 2005, “Directional Control in Thermally Driven Single-Molecule Nanocars”
    American Chemical Society, Southern Chemist of the Year Award 2005
    Honda Innovation Award, NanoCars, 2005
    Distinguished Faculty Associate, Hanszen College, Rice University, 1999-2000
    Russell Research Award in Science, Mathematics and Engineering, Univ. South Carolina, 1997
    Abbott Distinguished Lecturer, Colorado State Univ., March 1997
    Weissberger-Williams Lecturer, Eastman Kodak Corporation, Rochester, NY, November 1995
    Exxon Educational Foundation Research and Training Award, 1994
    National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chem., 1991-96
    Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry, 1989-92
    IBM Corporation, One-Week Visiting Lecturer, Polymer Division, Almaden Research Center, June 1988
    National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Fellow, 1987-88
    IBM Corporation Full Graduate Fellowship in Polymer Chemistry, Purdue University 1985-86
    Celanese Corporation Graduate Fellowship in Chemistry, Purdue University, 1981-82
    American Institute of Chemists Award, 1981
    Bachelor of Science, Cum Laude, Syracuse University, 1981
    George Wiley Award in Organic Chemistry, 1979.
    https://www.jmtour.com/about/resume/

    Personally Chuckdarwin, I don’t think you are even worthy to tie Dr Tour’s shoelaces, but hey, you can prove me wrong and list all your awards and honors to prove to me that you are more than just a atheistic troll on the internet bad mouthing anyone, (no matter how qualified they may be to speak on a subject), who dares to question your atheistic Darwinian worldview.

  4. 4
    Heartlander says:

    ID is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo – but Neo-darwinism is just atheism in a fig leaf.

    – Richard Dawkins books:
    River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
    A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love
    The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design
    Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide
    The God Delusion

    – Daniel Dennett books:
    Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
    Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life
    Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind

    – Michael Ruse books:
    Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution
    Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know

    – PZ Myers book:
    The Happy Atheist

    Neo-darwinism has no Foresight, Ingenuity, and Guidance (FIG) – and once the FIG leaves, atheism is exposed.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Heartlander,

    Thanks for that list. I never noticed how many of the titles of books by Darwinists have direct Theological underpinnings.

    Which is just as well that they are so overt in their theological bias. It turns out that (bad) Theological argumentation, not experimentation, is crucial to Darwinian ‘science’:

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    In fact, (bad) theological argumentation, not experimentation, was crucial to Darwin’s book “Origin of Species’ itself,

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    As Paul Nelson noted, ” evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going.”

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Moreover, their blatant (misuse) of Theology is a direct contradiction to the Darwinian claim that science must toe ‘methodological naturalism’, (i.e. no Intelligence allowed), as a ground rule,

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson –
    Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

    Thus, since Darwinists have no experimental evidence supporting their grandiose claims,

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
    – Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. ?*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    ,, and yet, since Darwinian evolution is apparently vitally dependent of (bad) theological argumentation, then, by default, Darwinian evolution is, in reality, a religion, not a science.,,,

    What “religion” are you teaching your kids?
    Famed Yale computer science professor quits believing Darwin’s theories – JENNIFER KABBANY – FIX EDITOR •JULY 30, 2019
    Excerpt: How does the field of biology get over Darwin? Gelernter said the outlook is bleak.
    “Religion is imparted, more than anything else, by the parents to the children,” he said. “And young people are brought up as little Darwinists. Kids I see running around New Haven are all Darwinists. … The students in my class, they’re all Darwinsts. I am not hopeful.”
    https://www.thecollegefix.com/famed-yale-computer-science-professor-quits-believing-darwins-theories/

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    What a great podcast! Thanks for your comments, KF, BA77, HL. The overlap of authors writing popular books on Darwinism and atheism is remarkable.

    -Q

  7. 7
    Kushanto says:

    Bornagain77@3

    Hear, hear! It’s good to call out the empty bluster in such rantings.

Leave a Reply